Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Primary Care Groups

Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on the establishment of primary care groups. [77698]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Four hundred and eighty-one primary care groups, covering the whole of England, will become operational from 1 April. They will replace the divisive internal market introduced by the previous Government, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. In place of that, the primary care groups will represent all local family doctors, together with community and practice nurses, representatives of social services and lay people. They should ensure more modem and dependable services and less bureaucracy overall.

Mr. Boswell: Now that PCGs are a reality, is the Secretary of State worried about their management capabilities and about the level of management cost allowance, which was said by John Chisholm of the British Medical Association to be inadequate at £3 a head? Is he concerned about the suggestions by other GPs that PCGs may form a perfect vehicle for rationing health care services?

Mr. Dobson: Primary care groups were introduced with the consent and agreement of the BMA. The level of management costs is neither a floor nor a ceiling; it varies from place to place, and rightly so. I am confident that, as a result of the introduction of primary care groups, people will have more universal access to top-quality care. What we are proposing goes with the grain of what the professions wanted, and that is what we have delivered.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: In developing the policy, will my right hon. Friend consider the future capital resourcing of primary care? Is he aware of the

difficulties with the funding arrangements in respect of GPs' surgeries and health centres, whereby GPs occasionally have to charge exorbitant rents to social services and community health trusts for community psychiatric nurses who are in attendance, which obstructs the close working relationship of health and social services in a primary care setting?

Mr. Dobson: We want to continue improving primary care premises. We have changed the rules to make it easier for people to develop or improve existing primary care premises in health action zones, and we will continue to try to help. As an indication of the progress that has been made, the Turnberg review of health care in London more than a year ago reported that about 50 per cent. of premises were inadequate. That figure is now down to 32 per cent.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House on 18 January that primary care groups provided incentives for all concerned to level up' to the standards of the best."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 594.]?
What does he have to say to the 60 per cent. of patients whose GPs were fundholders and who are already finding, in the run-up to the takeover by PCGs, that services such as counselling, alternative therapies and many other innovative services are being withdrawn by those GPs? Can he tell the House by what tortuous logic he can define the withdrawal of services as levelling up?

Mr. Dobson: First, let us get the facts straight. It is not the case that 60 per cent. of GPs were fundholders when we took over. It was about 50 per cent.—a large number of whom were unwilling fundholders, but had decided to go along with the scheme. We have tried to make it clear to health authorities and others that we do not expect people to withdraw services that are presently being provided.

Mr. Hammond: It is happening already.

Mr. Dobson: If it is happening, it should not be—but that is down to local decision making. The decisions will be made by the doctors, the community nurses, the practice nurses, people from social services and lay people who serve on the boards of primary care groups. Decisions will be taken by the people who are responsible for delivering the services in each locality; the first time that that has been the case in the history of the health service.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the primary care group in Northampton, which built on the work of the commissioning GPs—who existed under the previous Government—and did such important work in terms of commissioning emergency pelvic scanning for women, which has helped deal with the problems of the early stages of pregnancy? Does he agree that, if the doctors of Daventry are having problems setting up their primary care groups, they could come to Northampton where they would learn a great deal?

Mr. Dobson: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the medical profession. Until 1 April, it will have had


monopoly control over decision making in primary care since primary care was invented. Voluntarily, the profession agreed to give representation to nurses, social services and lay people on the boards of the primary care groups because it thought that that was the best way of serving local people. In nearly every part of the country, the profession has made remarkable strides in developing primary care groups. I emphasise that this is an entirely voluntary arrangement; no law has been changed. However, in every part of the country, the primary care groups have been established with the consent of—and, in most cases, a great deal of enthusiasm from—the professionals on whom we depend.

Bed Blocking

Dr. Vincent Cable: How many beds are currently blocked in the district general hospitals in west Middlesex and Kingston. [77699]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): On 19 March, out of 376 occupied beds at Kingston hospital there were 19 containing patients ready for discharge but still in acute care. In the 319 occupied beds at West Middlesex hospital there were 40 such patients.

Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that the considerable problems that those two hospitals have with admissions are being compounded by the fact that the surrounding local authorities, which happen to be respectively Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative controlled, are all having to cut their services for the elderly because of the local government settlement? At a national level, what is his reaction to last week's Age Concern report, written by a leading NHS geriatrician, which said that up to 70,000 additional admissions could be secured if the Government were willing to co-ordinate, with local authorities, effective rehabilitation programmes for elderly patients?

Mr. Hutton: That is exactly the direction of our current work within the Government. We want to reduce delayed discharges, and we are working to that end. Last winter, we spent £209 million in additional money on trying to find better ways of managing discharge from acute hospitals into the community. Many of those schemes operated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Nearly £1.5 million was spent in Kingston and Richmond health authority area, and one such scheme benefited 40 patients. We are pursuing the right policies and additional resources are being spent. The new national service framework for older people, which we launched last week, will include an expert task group working specifically to improve discharge arrangements from acute hospitals into the community.

Accident and Emergency Services

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What analysis he has made of the impact on employment in the NHS of his accident and emergency modernisation schemes. [77700]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Altogether, £100 million extra will be invested

over the coming year in modernising accident and emergency departments. That will be better for patients and staff; it will also help to retain and create jobs. The recent investment of more than £1 million in modernising the accident and emergency department at the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth provided orders for more than 20 firms from all parts of the country. Rule of thumb suggests that the £100 million investment will provide 100 times as many orders, and that 100 times as many jobs will flow from them.

Mr. Cunningham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on one of the biggest hospital development programmes in history, with 31 new hospital developments worth more than £2 billion? Will he publish a list of the companies involved, and the jobs created as a result of that new development?

Mr. Dobson: Yes, I will. As I have pointed out, more than 20 firms received orders for £1 million worth of improvements in Portsmouth. The developments in some parts of the country—at the Norfolk and Norwich, for example, where the total cost of the hospital is £160 million—will result in huge orders being placed all over the country. That is part of our policy not only to benefit the patients and hard-working staff of the health service, but to create jobs all over the country.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Secretary of State will know that some people being treated in accident and emergency units have to go into an intensive care unit because of the severity of their injuries. He will also know that the director of the ICU at Bedford hospital wrote to him six months ago complaining about the fact that he had had to turn away 58 patients because he did not have enough beds. Why has the Secretary of State not yet replied?

Mr. Dobson: Because I went there and spoke to him.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: From among the many advisers and specialists that my right hon. Friend talks to in the Department of Health, has he yet received any clinical explanation for the fact that, whenever he gives us good news about the national health service, Opposition Members look depressed?

Mr. Dobson: They look depressed today because we can announce that waiting lists in February fell by 39,000, taking the figure 38,000 below the one that we inherited. Over the past year, more than 450,000 extra operations have been carried out. [Interruption.] It is no good idiots opposite talking about fiddling—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that such language is not necessary. The Secretary of State knows what "Erskine May" says about good parliamentary language.

Mr. Dobson: I withdraw the word "idiots", and replace it with "Tories", Madam Speaker.
The Tories mock the performance of people in the health service. Nurses, doctors and other professionals put in a huge amount of work to deliver operations to 450,000 more people in the current year, and they will go on doing so. They will bring the waiting lists down, deal with more out-patients and with more accident and emergency cases.


There has been no fiddling; the figures have been produced on exactly the same basis as under the previous Government.

Beta Interferon

Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on the provision of beta interferon in the NHS. [77701]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): All health authorities were issued in 1995 with guidance that covered the use of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. It recommended that prescribing should be initiated by hospital specialists where clinically appropriate. The costs of prescribing are expected to be met within health authority allocations, taking account of local priorities.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for that reply. May I draw the Minister's attention to two cases in my constituency? Josephine Timms, a mother with a young family, and Adrian Donno, a young man with a promising career ahead of him, were each diagnosed with multiple sclerosis last July. Both were recommended by consultant neurologists for beta interferon prescription, but both are still waiting.
Every time they have a further attack, they become more dependent and more disabled. The longer they wait, the more likely it is that they will not fit the health authority's criteria for prescribing, which require them to demonstrate that they can walk unassisted without stopping for at least 100 yd.
Does the Minister agree that the failure to prescribe treatment that the consultant neurologists say will be beneficial to those patients and to others like them lets those people down and leads to a reduction in their quality of life?

Mr. Denham: Obviously, I shall take an interest in any individual case raised by an hon. Member. However, we should be clear that there are continuing questions about the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of beta interferon, the level of benefits achieved, which patients will benefit and for how long, and how the benefits compare with those of supporting MS patients through, for example, specialist nursing care. Health authorities and clinicians rightly take those and other factors into account when they set local priorities.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: As the Minister tells us, beta interferon can be prescribed only by a hospital consultant. The problem is, however, that, after initial diagnosis, many people with multiple sclerosis do not see a hospital consultant for years. They therefore do not know whether beta interferon would be the drug to help them. Would it not be sensible to put in place some recall system so that people with MS have the option to see a consultant if they feel that beta interferon or some other drug might help them, or if they are not coping as well as they should with MS?

Mr. Denham: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion carefully. We must ensure that clinical and cost-effective treatments are spread throughout the

national health service as quickly as possible, and that is one of the roles of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which will provide clear and authoritative advice on key treatments and procedures. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the discussion document and appraisal by NICE, we are minded to refer beta interferon to the institute.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an exchange about rationing in the health service that took place last year between me and the Minister for Public Health, in which I asked a very simple question:
Is there rationing or is there not?
The answer I got was very simple:
No".—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 746.]
In view of the evidence put to the House by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), does the Minister now wish to revise that answer?

Mr. Denham: No.

Miss Widdecombe: Is there or is there not rationing of beta interferon? Is there or is there not rationing of Aricept? Is there or is there not rationing of Ironotecan? Is there or is there not rationing of Taxol? If not, why cannot those patients who are prescribed those drugs obtain them?

Mr. Denham: The reality is that priority setting is a feature of every health care system in the world. It happens to be the case that the national health service is fairer, more equitable and more efficient than the privatised alternative that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) advocated earlier this week. While the Conservatives are giving up on the national health service, new Labour is building a new national health service.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? If he is denying rationing in the health service, will he explain to the House, and to those concerned people who would like to obtain drugs and operations that are not available, his definition of the difference between rationing and a priority?

Mr. Denham: Under the health system advocated by the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, any access to health care would be rationed by the ability to pay.

Children's Services

Mr. Denis Murphy: What estimate he has made of the total amount to be spent in the current financial year on improving NHS children's services. [77702]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Forecast total gross expenditure on the national health service in the United Kingdom for 1998–99 is £48.1 billion. Overall funding does not distinguish between age groups, although there are specific initiatives in our expenditure plans that will


be of direct benefit to children's health services. Planned gross expenditure for 1999–2000 is £50.8 billion—an increase of 3.1 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Northumbria health care trust plans to build phase 2 of Wansbeck general hospital. When will that building commence and will it include the much-needed children's centre?

Mr. Hutton: I acknowledge the support that my hon. Friend has shown for the new hospital development in his constituency. The child health centre is an integrated part of the Wansbeck phase 2 scheme, which is now under private finance initiative negotiation. It is expected that a full business case will be submitted to the regional office in May 1999. The trust hopes to be in a position to complete negotiations with a PFI partner within the next few weeks and officials from the regional office and the PFI unit are working with the trust on various aspects of the deal.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that funding of additional paediatric intensive care beds at Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency is a priority task for the management in the financial year ahead? Is he further aware that Addenbrooke's hospital is forecasting for the first time ever a revenue deficit of £2.5 million in the year ahead? For a well-managed hospital, that is an exceptional situation. Can the Minister explain why the Government have contributed to that difficulty by imposing costs of £622,000 next year to pay for the implementation of the working time directive?

Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman takes a regrettably negative tone. He has failed to acknowledge the fact—and it is a fact—that additional money is being made available to provide additional paediatric intensive care beds in the national health service.

Mr. Lansley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutton: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because that is a fact. Some £15 million is being made available to provide additional paediatric intensive care beds. He let that fact slip through his hands.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most unpleasant experiences for parents and children in the NHS is being rushed to accident and emergency departments with no separate facilities for children? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of visiting the separate, specialist facilities in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital, which provides an excellent service for children admitted to A and E. Can my hon. Friend comment on monitoring the expenditure of the welcome new money going into A and E provision and how it will improve services for children where there is no separate provision for them?

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is dealing with the reality, which is that the Government are spending significant extra money modernising accident and emergency departments across

the country. She, like my hon. Friends, but unlike Opposition Members, will be interested to know that some of the money in the modernisation programme will be spent on providing A and E facilities for children. That is good news and it is a pity Opposition Members are not prepared to acknowledge it.

Nurse Shortages

Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the level of nursing shortages; and if he will make a statement. [77704]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): From the various figures and sources available, I estimate that there are around 9,000 nursing vacancies in the national health service that have existed for three months or more. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on 1 February we launched a major recruitment campaign. Since then, more than 52,000 people have contacted the national response line. Around 5,000 of them were qualified nurses asking about returning to nursing. Nurses who have to go on refresher courses and return to the NHS will have their fees paid by the NHS; those who have already done so will have their fees reimbursed, including his constituents.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that there are between 12,000 and 13,000 nurse vacancies and believes that nurse shortages rather than flu epidemics created the winter crisis. What steps will he take to encourage experienced nurses—the backbone of the NHS—to remain in nursing and not leave the NHS at the present rate?

Mr. Dobson: The RCN certainly produced estimates different from those of officials of the NHS and my Department. When I last appeared before the Health Committee, I said that I would authorise my officials to get together with people with other estimates so that we can agree how many vacancies there are and not have futile discussion about numbers rather than doing something about it. We are trying to recruit extra nurses. It looks as though the campaign is successful. We are also trying to introduce family friendly policies so that services are available for nurses who want to be able to take their children to school in the morning, take them home in the evening or need a creche so that they can take younger children to the hospital or community service with them. We are determined to bring that about. That applies not only to nurses, but to everyone who works in the NHS because it must provide a top-class service for patients while allowing its hard-working staff to reconcile their jobs with their family responsibilities.

Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust, which held open evenings at the Crawley and East Surrey hospital sites attended by 165 people? Ten at Crawley signed up for the back-to-nursing course. They are delighted. There is clearly a new view about nursing and people feel invigorated that they are getting back into the profession that they love.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, speaking from her experience as a qualified nurse, offers me


some reassurance. In other parts of the country, besides the national initiatives that we have taken, local nursing managements are conducting a variety of initiatives to attract people back. It looks as though they are working. I have recently visited several hospitals with nurse returners. When I asked one why she had come back, she said that her children had reached the stage where it was quieter at work. She was working in the intensive care unit.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS cannot afford to lose any competent and qualified nurses. I certainly applaud the steps that have been taken to follow up the Opportunity 2000 initiatives. The NHS was the first public sector body to join Opportunity 2000. We had a debate yesterday on the Macpherson report. In 1993, the NHS set a target for the number of black and ethnic minority G grade nurses. What further steps are being taken to ensure that we do not lose the skills of public sector workers in the NHS from the black and ethnic minority communities?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is bad if we lose trained nurses from the health service. When we got in there were 140,000 qualified ex-nurses no longer working in the NHS, the odd one or two of whom, I have reason to believe, left when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Health.
We are doing a lot more than any previous Government about the recruitment and retention of black and Asian staff. One of the biggest problems is that, when one says to Afro-Caribbean young people, "Will you think of taking a job as a nurse in the health service?" they say, "Not if they're going to treat me like they treated my mum." We have to deal with that. We are setting examples in so far as we can. The only appointments that I make in the NHS are of non-executive directors. I am proud to say that since we got in we have raised the number of women on the boards to 50 per cent. and the number of black and Asian people to 10 per cent.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone with an ounce of common sense is highly delighted not only with the recruitment campaign that he has mounted, but with his serious acknowledgement that there is a problem with nurses and nurse retention? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will abandon any idea of introducing schemes for discretionary payments for nurses? We know that within the NHS such a scheme for doctors is unfair, inequitable and expensive.

Mr. Dobson: I am not entirely clear what my hon. Friend is referring to. We have certainly set our faces against the idea of performance-related pay in the NHS. We want to relate pay mainly to responsibility. With—I think—the likely agreement of the profession, we intend to get rid of the rigid grading system that is holding back the professional development of nurses and holding down their pay.

Newbury Hospital

Mr. David Rendel: When he will announce his decision about the construction of the new Newbury hospital. [77705]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Officials at the south-east regional office of the NHS executive are currently in discussion with West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS trust on the funding mechanism for the construction of the new Newbury hospital. Ministers will consider the project once those discussions are complete.

Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that there is a nurse now serving at Newbury hospital who was promised when she did her training as a young person that the new Newbury hospital would be built shortly? As it is still not being built and she is coming up to her retirement, is it not time that the Government stopped saying, "Shortly" and said, "Now"?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the scheme is unusual and complex. For example, it is the first time that a charity has been proposed to act as a private finance initiative partner. It was also important to examine whether the plans fitted the strategic direction of Berkshire health authority. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Berkshire is benefiting from a £73 million publicly funded scheme for the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS trust to resite its services at the Royal Berkshire hospital. That is one of the 31 major hospital developments worth almost £2.4 billion that make up the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Oliver Letwin: How many patients have been removed from central returns health service waiting list statistics since 2 May 1997, without having received the treatment intended. [77706]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): National health service waiting lists are falling because thousands of extra patients are being treated; more than 4 million elective patients have been treated in the first nine months of 1998–99—a third of a million more than a year ago.
Patients may be removed from waiting lists for a number of reasons other than treatment; for example, if they have recovered from their illness, or have been treated elsewhere. During the first three quarters of this year, 490,000 patients were removed from waiting lists; that means that the proportion of patients removed from the waiting list has remained broadly stable over recent years.

Mr. Letwin: Why has the number of patients waiting to get on to waiting lists apparently doubled since May 1997?

Mr. Denham: It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge what has been achieved in Dorset, where he comes from and where the allocation of an additional £4.2 million means that 8,000 more people were seen in hospitals in the Dorset health authority area during the first half of this year than in the first half of 1997–98. That additional work is a tribute to the staff of the national health service, whom he should not try to undermine.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend ensure that all people with Down's syndrome have


equality of access to all waiting lists? According to the Down's Syndrome Association, that is not the case at present; contrary to Government policy, some practitioners are treating those patients as second-class citizens. My hon. Friend will be aware of a recent television documentary that highlighted some cases, and some hon. Members will be aware of other cases.

Mr. Denham: I shall certainly look into any cases that my hon. Friend draws to my attention. It is the case that clinical need is the principle that governs the national health service.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will answer my actual question and not the one he hoped I would ask.
This morning, we have seen that, for the first time, the figures for waiting lists in England have fallen below the level that Labour inherited in May 1997, and we accept those figures. However, the number of those waiting more than 12 weeks to see their consultant, after seeing their doctor, has risen from about 250,000 to about 500,000, and the number of those still waiting for treatment more than a year after they have seen their consultant has risen from about 30,000 to just over 50,000. Given those figures, when will the Government change from their obsession with lists—which do not matter in the slightest to patients—to an obsession with waiting times, which matter deeply to patients? Will they tell us when those waiting times—between doctor and consultant, and consultant and treatment—will be below the level that Labour inherited from the previous Government?

Mr. Denham: First, the number of people waiting more than a year has fallen. Secondly, the number of people referred to out-patients includes those—perhaps 150,000—who attend for post-surgery visits. We intend to pay attention to out-patients; we are considering our planning for this year and anticipate that about a third of a million more out-patients will be treated in the coming year. That will take the number to be treated to more than 11 million for the first time.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the past 24 hours have been a significant demonstration of the contrast between the Labour Government's approach to the NHS and that of the Conservatives? The falling waiting lists contrast with the statement made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) articulating the Tory philosophy of the massive expansion of the private health care sector as a solution to the country's health care difficulties.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. While the Labour Government are building a new national health service—modern, dependable and there when people need it—the Opposition have given up on the national health service.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister recall that, before the election, the objective of the NHS was that 90 per cent. of patients should be seen in out-patients within 13 weeks of their first referral by a GP, and that the remaining 10 per cent. should be seen, at the latest, within 26 weeks of referral? Is it true—

I cannot believe that it is—that the Government have junked that objective? If it is true, what alternative, tighter target have the Government set in its place?

Mr. Denham: No, we have not junked the objective, but we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to cut waiting lists, and we have now brought them down to below the level that we inherited.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What advice does my hon. Friend have for a constituent of mine who has been waiting for a heart bypass for many months? In the past few months, he has three times been sent to the hospital, gowned up, given pre-meds and then sent home. I understand that he is to go tomorrow to try again. I also understand that the Freeman hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, has only five emergency beds.

Mr. Denham: I hope that my hon. Friend's constituent will benefit from the measures that the Government are taking to invest in the NHS: from 1 April begins the investment of an extra £21 billion in the NHS, and we have announced a further £320 million to tackle waiting lists in 1999–2000. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on nurse retention and recruitment are the key to ensuring that hospitals are properly staffed and able to meet their commitments to patients.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Today is not the triumph for the Minister that he would like people to believe it is. Instead of a serious improvement in what is really happening to patients who need treatment, there has been a published fall in the number of people on waiting lists together with a parallel rise in the number of people waiting to get on waiting lists in the first place. The real figure is far higher—[Interruption.]—as the Secretary of State, who is barracking from the Front Bench, well knows. People on the lists are waiting longer—[Interruption.]—in the case of the Alexandra hospital, Redditch, they are waiting more than 1,000 per cent. longer. Will the Minister, perhaps to a quiet House, now confirm that he has not yet met his pre-election pledge? In the interests of doing what is good for patients rather than for politicians, will he now drop his ill-conceived waiting list policy altogether and concentrate on what is good for the treatment of people who need it?

Mr. Denham: All the 450,000 extra operations carried out last year were performed on people who needed them. Which of them would the hon. Gentleman prefer we had not treated?

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend commend the approach to waiting lists adopted by the new Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust? In its first year of operation, which ends tomorrow, the trust has achieved not only its waiting list targets, but management savings of a recurrent £400,000 per annum. It has targets of a further recurrent £400,000 per annum next year, and all that money will be diverted into patient care. Will my hon. Friend commend every single person who works in that hospital trust on their excellent work?

Mr. Denham: I certainly commend all the staff in that hospital trust, and all the staff in the NHS, without whose


work we could not have achieved the fall in waiting lists that has been announced today. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the efficiency with which his local trust and many others now operate. Supported by the waiting list task force, the NHS is not only treating more patients, but treating them better, and organising services in more effective and more efficient ways. I am sure that my hon. Friend's local hospital is an example to the rest of the country.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Which health authorities have discussed with general practitioners measures to reduce the number of patients which they refer to hospitals for surgery for which there is a waiting list. [77709]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I would expect all health authorities and primary care groups regularly to discuss with GPs arrangements to ensure that patients receive the treatment they need, as quickly as possible. That is the key to improving health, reducing inequalities and modernising NHS services. Reductions in waiting lists are being achieved on the back of record growth in activity, with an extra 460,000 patients expected to be treated in 1998–99 than a year earlier.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In view of the exchanges that we have heard this afternoon, will the Minister confirm to the House that the number of patients who have waited more than 13 weeks to see a specialist has increased by more than 200,000 since Labour came to power?

Mr. Denham: I repeat what I said earlier: in planning for next year, we anticipate treating at least a third of a million more out-patients. That will take the number of out-patients to be treated in the national health service above 11 million for the first time.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Minister think it is ethical for GPs to be told that their patients cannot be referred for major operations because hospitals are trying to reduce waiting lists by performing only small operations and spending insufficient money? Does the Minister accept that that practice is prevalent, and will he condemn it?

Mr. Denham: I assure the hon. Gentleman absolutely that, if he can give me chapter and verse on those allegations, I shall look into them. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not expect and will not tolerate any manipulation of waiting list figures. I shall certainly examine any cases that the hon. Gentleman uncovers.

Health Professions (Regulation)

Mr. Phil Sawford: What measures he proposes for improving the regulation of health professions. [77710]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Government are committed to improving quality in the national health service through the introduction of clinical governance. Strong, open and accountable systems of professional self-regulation play an integral part in that, and we want to work with the

professions to build on and strengthen existing systems. The Health Bill includes measures to allow for the regulation of new professions and the strengthening of existing regulatory schemes by order.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome any action that is designed to improve the regulation of health professions. I draw his attention in particular to the situation regarding psychologists. It would seem that people can call themselves counsellors, therapists or psychologists without receiving any training whatever. Will my hon. Friend support the current moves by that profession to establish a register of chartered psychologists in order to protect the public from possible exploitation, abuse or harm? If necessary, can such registration be made a statutory requirement?

Mr. Denham: I share my hon. Friend's concern about bogus psychologists or anyone else who makes false claims concerning health care and treatment. The Government are well aware of the issues involved.
The order-making power proposed under the Health Bill would allow regulatory schemes to be set up for health care professions, such as psychology, that are not yet covered by statute. Our officials who are directly involved in developing the proposals have discussed those matters with the British Psychological Society, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will hear the views of the society on 21 April. That will help us to consider the options and reach a decision in due course about the right action to take.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While we may accept that some regulation of the medical profession may be necessary, does the Minister agree that the medical profession across the spectrum requires a boost in morale? Will he follow the example set by the East Cheshire NHS trust and its chairman Peter Hayes and ensure that morale across the hospital service is of the highest order? In doing that, he would ensure the best service provision to the people of this country and treatment of a maximum number of people.

Mr. Denham: I am very keen, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, to ensure that best practice is spread throughout the national health service. The system of NHS beacons is designed, among other things, to identify good practice in leadership and management. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's local trust will be able to contribute to that process. However, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the significant determination of the medical profession to modernise its system of self-regulation, which I think will benefit patients throughout the country.

Mr. John Heppell: I welcome the Minister's attempts to improve the quality of service in our hospitals. However, is he aware that last week two patients in Nottingham City hospital contracted malaria? Even more worrying, it has been discovered since then that another patient who was discharged from the hospital has died from malaria. Will the Minister assure us that


there will be a thorough investigation into the causes and that whatever measures are necessary to protect the public in future will be taken?

Mr. Denham: That is a very unusual occurrence.

Madam Speaker: It had nothing to do with the question, either.

Mr. Denham: For the reason given by my hon. Friend, the authorities will certainly establish what happened in that case and whether there are any lessons to be learned from that.

Regional Specialist Units (Hillington)

Mr. John Wilkinson: When he expects to announce the conclusion of his Department's reviews affecting regional specialist units at hospital in the borough of Hillingdon. [77711]

The Secretary of the State for Health (Mr. frank Dobson): The Turnberg report on the future of London's health services recommended a thorough review of specialist health services in west London. We accepted all the Turnberg recommendations, including that one. A group covering all the specialist services involved is now considering how best to provide top-quality patient services, teaching and research in that area, which includes Harefield hospital in Hillingdon. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be reassured to know that I have discussed the review with Sir Magdi Yacoub on two occasions, that he is content with the proposals and that I have given him my personal undertaking that NHS funding will be available to help to fund the heart sciences centre and the patient services centre at Harefield.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, particularly with regard to Harefield. However, I turn his attention to the future of the regional specialty for burns and plastic surgery at Mount Vernon hospital. There is a grave discrepancy between the right hon. Gentleman's boasts that he will take into account local opinions on the siting of services, and the blithe disregard for the wishes of local people as expressed in a petition with more than 80,000 signatures, as well as an early-day motion in my name and a deputation to the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us that he will invest in centres of excellence such as Mount Vernon and Harefield, rather than putting all his eggs in the basket of the private finance initiative hospital, which may be seductive for the financiers, but is not necessarily the most cost-effective option?

Mr. Dobson: The future of the burns and plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon hospital is being considered by an expert advisory group. The group has not yet reported back even to Hillingdon health authority. If local people and the community health council are opposed to the proposals, the decision will eventually rest with me. No decisions have been made. I shall, in line with the Turnberg recommendations, make sure that the best health services for treatment, training and research are available in west London. That may or may not mean that there

will be changes at Mount Vernon. I do not know at the moment because I have not received the advisory group's report.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of specialist treatment centres such as the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon would have been better assured if, in 1996, before the election, the Tories had not closed the hospital's accident and emergency department?

Mr. Dobson: Yes.

Social Work

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to promote high standards in social work; and if he will make a statement. [77712]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We shall promote high and improved standards for all social care staff. We have already announced our proposals to create a general social care council. Before that, we aim to reshape the social work training system and launch a new post-qualifying award in child care later this year. This summer, our new training strategy will allow us to start raising qualification levels in the whole social care work force.

Mr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key to high standards in social work is a trained work force? Is he aware that some 80 per cent. of the social care work force do not have any qualifications? Is that a priority for him, and what action is he taking to improve the situation?

Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is unacceptable to us—and, I am sure, to everyone in the House—that such an important group of key workers remain largely unqualified. Some of the measures that I have already announced will help to raise the qualification levels in the social care work force, but my hon. Friend may be particularly interested in the steps that we are taking to introduce a new national vocational qualification level 3 award for people working in residential child care settings. It is our priority to improve the qualification levels of all the social care work force, and the programmes that we have set in train will achieve that.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister recall the recent letter that he sent to Worcestershire county council congratulating it on the high priority that it attaches to a high standard of social work and social services? Does he understand that that demands an inflation-busting increase in council tax of 9.9 per cent? To avoid any possible charge of hypocrisy, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in order that the county council is not penalised for protecting social services and social work, to which the Minister says he attaches such importance?

Mr. Hutton: The local government settlement was a fair one for all authorities. I have recently been to Worcester to see at first hand some of the outstanding and excellent social care schemes that the county council is organising. I pay tribute to the staff there for that. I am


sure that the hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that a new hospital costing more than £100 million will be constructed in Worcester, which is good news. It is something, I am afraid, that his Administration never quite got round to doing.

Smokers (Health Care Charges)

Mr. Barry Sheerman: If he will introduce a system of health care charges for smokers before they receive NHS treatment. [77713]

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government have no plans to introduce such a system. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend needs no reminding that to do so would be in breach of the founding principles of the NHS: it is open to all regardless of income; it treats sick people when they need treatment because they need treatment, not because of why they need treatment.

Mr. Sheerman: I know that, like me, my right hon. Friend wants not to penalise smokers but to help them liberate themselves from a disgusting habit that damages their health and future. Does she agree that it is worrying that, after many years of decline in smoking, the use of tobacco is increasing again, especially among young people, and particularly women? Will she stand up to all the pressures on her, unlike the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who, even in the face of a recommendation from three Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, would not ban tobacco advertising?

Ms Jowell: I have seen the reports, to which my hon. Friend refers, of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) not supporting a ban on tobacco advertising. We know that our strategy against smoking, particularly to reduce smoking among young people, will

not work unless we ban tobacco advertising, which is why we will ban tobacco advertising. We know that smoking is the single greatest cause of health inequality. We know that the right hon. Lady, when she was Secretary of State, banned the term "inequality" in the Department of Health. It is therefore not surprising that she refused to take measures to reduce inequality in health. We will tackle smoking and we will reduce health inequality.

Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Minister on her reply to the original question. Does she agree that there is no reason on earth why smokers, of whom I ceased to be one on 25 June 1986, should pay an extra tax for NHS treatment, given that they contribute approximately six times more to the Exchequer than they cost the NHS in treatment for smoking-related illnesses? Does she agree furthermore, that if she were so foolish—which she is not—to pursue the pernicious nostrum recommended by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), she would in all logic have to extend it to people suffering from alcohol-related illnesses or, indeed, avoidable obesity?

Ms Jowell: I have from time to time wondered how the hon. Gentleman might be an example to the young people of this nation: this afternoon, he has revealed to the House that young people can admire him for the fact that he gave up smoking.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to reduce smoking among young people, particularly women. Will she congratulate Birmingham health authority on its tremendous work and commitment to make Birmingham a smoke-free city by 2005?

Ms Jowell: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the leadership shown in Birmingham in declaring itself a smoke-free city. We hope that, as we implement the agreement to extend smoke-free public places, other cities will enjoy the benefits that the people of Birmingham are enjoying.

Modernising Government

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the modernising government White Paper, which I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down. The White Paper sets out the Government's vision of public service into the next millennium. It provides new directions for change. It is also a clear statement that government must be responsive to the public and that policies and services must be shaped around people's needs.
Modernisation is a hallmark of this Government. We are reforming the welfare and criminal justice systems, rebuilding the national health service, raising standards in schools and restructuring our democratic and constitutional framework. To achieve those goals, we must also modernise the way in which government itself works. It is modernisation with a purpose: to make life better for people and for business, too.
The White Paper is based around five principles: first, policy that is forward looking and able to deliver outcomes that matter, and not simply short-term in its aims. Policy must tackle causes, not symptoms, and be measured by results, rather than activity. Policies must be designed around shared goals, not just organisational structures. Policy making must also reflect the needs of different groups—women, older people, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities among them. We want a wider input into policy making from those who deliver it and those who are affected by it.
New initiatives in the White Paper include the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies, identifying and spreading good practice in policy making; joint training for Ministers and officials in policy making; and a drive to remove unnecessary regulation and ensure that future regulations are necessary and proportionate. Where Departments are preparing policies that impose regulatory burdens, high-quality regulatory impact assessments must be submitted to Ministers and agreed by the Cabinet Office before decisions are taken.
The Government also intend, when parliamentary time allows, to increase the flexibility of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to facilitate deregulatory action.
Secondly, public services should meet the needs of citizens, and not just at the convenience of the service providers. People are rightly impatient with ineffective and inconvenient services that stem simply from the way in which government is organised. They should not have to worry about what part of government they are dealing with. They want services that are joined up and responsive to their needs. People are used to private sector services being available when they want them. The Government are committed to delivering public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where there is demand.
The modernising government White Paper sets out action to reduce obstacles to joined-up working, commits government to working through local partnerships and one-stop shops to achieve those services and includes clear commitments to making common life episodes, which we all experience, less bureaucratic and less burdensome.
The third principle is that of delivering high-quality public services and not tolerating mediocrity. The Government are committed to ensuring that our public services are innovative, effective and efficient. Some of our public services are outstanding. Others simply are not good enough. We intend to bring them up to the level of the best and make sure that the best get even better. I emphasise that we are not prepared to tolerate mediocrity of the kind that we inherited from the previous Administration.
We are committed to quality and continuous improvement of services, and we will use competition to deliver improvement, but the Government will not make the mistake of rigidly preferring private sector delivery over public sector, or vice versa. Instead, we will review all central and local government department services and activities over the next five years to identify the best supplier in each case.
In addition, we will set up "learning labs", encouraging new ways of working by front-line staff by suspending rules and removing red tape that stifles innovation, and, as part of our focus on delivery, we will ask all permanent secretaries to ensure that their Departments have the capacity to drive through achievement of the key Government targets and to take personal responsibility for ensuring that that happens.
Fourthly, we will develop government for the information age. The Government intend that, within three years, people will be able electronically to look for work and be matched to job vacancies; submit tax returns and VAT returns; access health care advice through NHS Direct; apply for regional business support grants; be paid by government for goods and services, and notify different parts of government of details, such as change of address, through one transaction.
Looking ahead, we propose that 100 per cent. of dealings with government should be capable of electronic delivery by 2008. We will achieve that by developing a corporate information technology strategy for government, establishing frameworks across government on issues such as digital signatures, smart cards and websites.
Government must also serve those who feel excluded from developments in information technology. We will ensure that information age government increases the choice of how citizens and businesses receive services, and not restrict it. We must also address people's concern that information technology could lead to "big brother" government. Our belief is that data protection should be an objective of information age government, and not an obstacle to it.
Fifthly, the Government will value public service, not denigrate it. The public service must be the agent of the changes identified throughout the White Paper. We must make sure that it is properly equipped to rise to the challenge and properly rewarded for success. We will remove unnecessary bureaucracy which prevents public servants from experimenting, innovating and delivering a better product. We want staff at all levels to contribute to evaluating policies and services, and to put forward ideas about how they might be improved. We will explore the scope for financial rewards for staff who identify financial savings or service improvements.
The public service must also reflect the full diversity of society. At present, it does not. The White Paper therefore includes a range of measures—linked to tough new


targets—to tackle the under-representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities in the senior ranks of the public service.
The Government will develop a civil service for the 21st century. We will provide incentives for innovation and collaborative working. We will bring in more people from outside, open up recruitment, and create opportunities for able, younger staff to be promoted more quickly. We will bring together key players from across the public sector to exchange experience and work more closely together.
The White Paper is a programme for the whole of the public sector—local government, central Government, the health service—and we have worked closely with them all in developing it. We want to mobilise all the public sector's resources to achieve the outcomes that people want from government.
This not a single event; it is part of a process of change that we will manage, develop and improve over time. But we have set a clear direction for change over the years to come that will make our public services better than any anywhere else in the world. We will drive forward change by setting milestones to chart the course, by publishing the measures of success by which the programme can be judged and by reporting on its progress annually to Parliament.
In the White Paper, the Government have set out the most radical programme of public service reform for a generation, and I commend it to the House.

Sir George Young: We welcome the publication of the White Paper, with its objective of improving the quality of public services. We look forward to debating the important issues in it, and we congratulate the Minister on not appearing on the "Today" programme to trail it. I have to tell him that I preferred the original title, "Better Government", to the one that he has chosen, "Modernising Government".
Does the Minister agree that the foundations of what he calls joined-up government were laid by his predecessors? City challenge, the single regeneration budget and Government offices for the regions—which were all opposed by Labour Members—were pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In driving this concept forward, should the Minister not re-examine some of the initiatives launched since 1997? In our cities, we now have education action zones, employment zones, health action zones, crime and disorder partnerships and new deal for communities. Will those now be joined up?
Should we not consider other issues? For example, as we just heard in Question Time, there has been more money from the Department of Health for the national health service, which we welcome, but I know that Hampshire has had less money from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for social services. What people gain from the NHS swings, they lose on the social services roundabout. As the Minister patrols the frontiers between Departments, will he tackle these problems of conflict and confusion?
The Minister's statement raises important issues for Parliament. We vote money to Departments and we hold Ministers to account, but, as more money is pooled and spent collectively, the more difficult it is to stick to our historic approach to accountability. Has the Minister

thought that through, and are there not issues for our Select Committees to consider? Does devolution not make the achievement of joined-up government more difficult? For example, disabled people need cash and care, but policy on cash is retained at Westminster, whereas policy for care has been devolved.
On the use of information technology, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the risk of pinning his faith on large IT systems at the moment? All hon. Members have constituents caught up in the shambles of the immigration and nationality directorate at the Home Office, where people have to queue from 4 o'clock in the morning and which it is impossible to get through to by phone. Government there is not so much joined up, as clogged up. The Benefits Agency has had much publicised difficulties with the national insurance recording system. People have not received the right pension, and have been offered £10 compensation.
What the Minister has just outlined is larger than any system that has so far been successfully introduced. Will he approach it with a measure of caution? He recognised the need to deregulate, but there have been 2,000 new regulations since 1997, with schools receiving roughly one communication from education departments every day. Will he reassess that approach?
If the Government are to provide a more coherent approach to the services that the individual needs, how will the individual be identified? Will we all have a number? Are we moving towards ID cards, and how will civil liberties be protected?
What will be the cost and who will pay for the delivery of public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Does that pledge cover the whole of the United Kingdom? Will it be possible to retain a unified home civil service after devolution? Will Wales and Scotland end up with their own civil service? Does the White Paper stress the importance of a non-political, impartial civil service? Has not some injury been done to that concept since 1997 by the increase in special advisers, the establishment of a strategic communications unit and the decision to make the Prime Minister's private secretary and press secretary political appointments?
We welcome the Government's stated aims to improve government, to make it more accessible, more accountable and more cost-effective, but we shall watch the details and the implementation with some care.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the White Paper. His tone and comments were in marked contrast to the buffoonery of some Conservative Members, and I also welcome that.
I shall try to deal with his important questions. We have not thrown away successes from the previous Government's policies. The White Paper acknowledges that there were some successes in this area under the previous Government, and we want to build on and retain them. I am pleased to put that on the record.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that action zones should be "joined up". The whole purpose of health and education action zones is to join up local services so that they can deal with problems more comprehensively. Action zones are examples of joined-up government in action.
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed more money for the health service—in marked contrast to his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opposed such action and described it as reckless. Again, there is a divergence of opinion in the shadow Cabinet on what investment in the health service is welcome and what is not.
There is no conflict and confusion in government. The White Paper covers all the activities of both central Government and local government. Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader of the Local Government Association, has been a working member of the Cabinet Committee preparing the work.
The "invest to save" budget is an example of precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked us to do. It will target resources for new activities of this kind, in which more than one agency is involved, with the aim of providing services more efficiently. That applies to local government, Government agencies and Departments of State in Whitehall.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals raise questions about accountability. We have asked the performance and innovation unit—[Interruption.] We have asked the performance and innovation unit to examine issues of accountability in one of its first studies, because, understandably, the House will want to know how it may be affected by the pooling of resources and the sharing of budgets. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, notwithstanding the inane mutterings of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Devolution means that elected Governments in Scotland and Wales will have to decide for themselves. Of course we hope that they will join us in many of our initiatives where that is appropriate, but the very fact of devolution will, in some cases, mean diversity and choice. That was recognised when we embarked on the major constitutional reform that has been so widely welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard me say that, precisely because we want to avoid the problems of large single information technology systems that he identified, we are developing a corporate strategy for the whole of government. Such a strategy did not exist under the last Administration; that was rather remiss of them. We intend to establish not a single mega-system. but different systems using nets to avoid the problems described by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned identity cards. As the White Paper makes clear, there will be no compulsion. If people choose to use smart cards to gain access to government services, that will be a matter for them, but it will be purely voluntary: no one will be compelled to have a smart card.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about making government services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People with web television sets will soon be able to fill in their self-assessment income tax forms at home, and send them to the Inland Revenue electronically. Businesses will be able to do the same with their value added tax returns. The idea that that is not a major advance for people and businesses in terms of convenience and efficiency is laughable: it is a major step

forward, enabling people to fill up forms conveniently in their homes without all the paperwork that has dogged them in the past. I am sure that both individuals and businesses will welcome this development warmly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the future of the civil service. Civil service unions have been closely involved in the work as it has developed. I see the general secretaries of the unions regularly. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office and other ministerial colleagues have been engaged in a wide-ranging series of workshops with front-line service providers in the public service, learning from them how we can improve the delivery of services. They have many good ideas about how that improvement might be achieved. None of the proposals threatens the future of a unified civil service; nor do we have any intention of doing so.

Dr. David Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and wish him well in his efforts to ensure that the service that our citizens receive in the public sector is equal to the best that they experience in the private sphere. I remind him that, for most of our citizens, government means standing in queues and filling in unnecessary forms. Will he give an assurance that it is his objective to use the best information technology, including voluntary government smart cards, to ensure that unnecessary queueing and form filling are things of the past?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. I also thank him because he was the one who embarked on the radical reforms; he set the work in train while he was working in the Cabinet Office. I was grateful to him for the work that I inherited.
My right hon. Friend is right: we want to take the hassle out of life for people. That is why we need to redesign the provision and delivery of government services for the convenience of those who use them, not of those who provide and work in them. Historically—under all Governments of all parties—that is the way in which public services have been organised: on a nine-to-five, five-day-a-week basis. The private sector has shown the way forward. We must learn from its advances and adopt them, where it is possible and appropriate, in the public services. That we shall do.
As for unnecessary form filling, my right hon. Friend is right about that, too. We have seen from lots of experiences and encounters how it is not only tiresome and time consuming, but distressing for people to have to fill out several forms about someone in the family who has a disability or is ill. When people are under stress, bureaucracy should be helping them and reducing the stress, not placing more burdens on them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the Minister on giving us a joined-up statement, which perhaps is more easy to debate than to ask questions about, as, in some areas, it appears to point in different directions. For example, in respect of the attitudes towards public service, it still seems that the Government are in purchaser-provider mode, yet elsewhere we are told about the importance of the high duty of high-quality public service. Those things are not exactly contradictory, but they suggest that the Government are not quite as radical as they claim.
I want to ask a particular question on that score. Why have the Government not proposed a statutory basis for the civil service code of conduct to ensure that the impartiality and, indeed, ethical underpinnings that we look for are put in place by Parliament, and are not dependent on the prerogative powers on which they rest at present?

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the White Paper. It is increasingly apparent that the people who use, need and depend on the services that we are talking about do not care so much about who the provider is; they care about the quality and accessibility of the services. That is why we have not been dogmatic about who the provider should be. The provider may be the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary sector. What matters is that people get easy access to the service when they need it, and that the service is of the quality that they are entitled to expect as local and national taxpayers. That is why we are determined to look at how services are provided, and to test them against the best available. If they are found wanting, we shall have to make changes, whether that means local or national Government decisions.
As for the independence of the civil service, there is nothing in the White Paper that threatens for a moment the long-standing, robust and continuing independence of the civil service.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper shows the narrowness of thinking during the 18 years of the previous Administration? Although there were undoubtedly efficiency gains from the setting up of the next steps agencies, the price paid was narrowed departmental thinking; the chief executive of a next steps agency, on performance-related pay, looked after that agency, but lost sight of the big picture. The White Paper helps to restore the primacy of the interests of UK plc.
Is it necessary for the centre to be further strengthened? Will the reforms suggested in the report to the Prime Minister by Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary—which was never made public—have to be followed through to provide the technical and bureaucratic lead, to go with the ministerial lead, to drive the reforms through?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree that the narrowness of thinking—and. on occasion, meanness and cheapness masquerading as efficiency—of the previous Administration left so many of our public services starved of resources in terms of personnel and equipment. We have set about putting that right. I remind the House that we have invested £21 billion extra in the health service and £19 billion extra in education.
The reforms of the Cabinet Office are central to many of the White Paper proposals which we continue to drive through on the basis of the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last July.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Although I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—I will certainly read the White Paper—will he, in the interim, say whether he would be prepared to enter his statement in a national competition

for a parody of management-speak? Will the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies teach Ministers how to prepare statements as well as to prepare policy?

Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so curmudgeonly in his response to the White Paper. He was a Minister for many years, and he knows very well that the Government of whom he was a member left our public services in pretty bad shape. We are doing something about that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 38 days' time, on the morning of Friday 7 May, to whom will Mr. Muir Russell, currently permanent secretary at the Scottish Office, be ultimately responsible—the First Minister in Holyrood or the Prime Minister in 10 Downing street?

Dr. Cunningham: As a member of a unified, United Kingdom civil service, he will be responsible in the way that he always has been.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: What is meant by
joint training for Ministers and officials in policy making"?
Does that mean that officials will be making policy? Should it read "the policy-making process"? With the greater availability of information technology must surely come greater confidentiality and security. What extra steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to assure the individual about the security of the system that he proposes?

Dr. Cunningham: In the White Paper, we say that we must learn how to develop and implement policy better than Governments have been able to do in the past; that is a modest, but honest, thing to say. If we can do that by working together with the senior civil service, as is proposed, in the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies, we shall.
The hon. Gentleman's question seems to suggest that we already know all the answers to the questions of how to grapple with and solve the complex problems that we face. We do not know all the answers, and we need to develop policies more effectively than the record of failed policies shows us was done in the past. We cannot go back to making the same mistakes that were made then.
We will develop new systems of training and working together for Ministers and civil servants and, as the policies develop, we shall, of course, have to ensure that they are consistent with the Data Protection Acts.

Dr. Tony Wright: One of the principles associated with the present Government is doing what works—contrary to the behaviour of the previous Government, who seemed to operate on the opposite principle. That means finding out what works, ensuring that we evaluate new programmes properly and then disseminating throughout the rest of the public sector information about what works. Will that not be one of the major tasks of the new performance and innovation unit?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree that we need to find out what works and develop policy accordingly. Another of the themes running through the White Paper is the dissemination of best practice, whether that be in local government or in central Government. As I said earlier,


it could involve central and local government working together. One of the aims of the performance and innovation unit is to examine how we can do that more effectively, and I look forward to the first of its four reports, which will be available in the summer.

Mr. Eric Forth: I thought that 1 April had come early, and we were being treated to a spoof White Paper. Among the clichéd gems that I made a note of are "vision of public service" and "new direction for change".
When the Secretary of State moves on from the "PlayStation Government" that he is offering us now, will he explain how he squares his claims about deregulation, which he repeated today for the umpteenth time, with the plethora of regulations that the Government have showered on the education and health services and on business since the day they came to office? Until he can explain that satisfactorily to the hapless recipients of the bureaucracy and the regulations, no one will believe a word that has been spoken this afternoon.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman used clichés to complain about clichés. As for regulations, Labour Members believe in the national minimum wage—unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, who believe in poverty pay. We believe in necessary legislation to protect both people and the environment, and we shall go on legislating to fulfil our manifesto commitments. That is not inconsistent with taking tougher action and new powers, or with introducing new systems in government to ensure that the regulatory burdens are proportionate where necessary, and, where not necessary, are not imposed.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many members of the senior civil service are drawn from ethnic minorities? What form will affirmative action take?

Dr. Cunningham: In the civil service as a whole, people from the ethnic minority communities are proportionately represented. However, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are not proportionately represented in the higher ranks and the better jobs in the civil service. In 1998, people from ethnic minority backgrounds held 1.6 per cent. of all posts in the senior civil service. We aim to increase that proportion—indeed, to double it—by the early part of the next century. We shall set a target for women in senior civil service posts too, for the same reasons. They, too, are hopelessly under-represented at the top of the civil service.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, if he employs high-flown management-speak, people will fear that he is concealing, rather than revealing. Much of the language of his statement simply was not the plain English that would have helped many of us.
The right hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about the civil service. I have not, of course, read the White Paper, as it was not available until he stood up to speak. What plans are there to put the civil service code on a statutory basis? That theme ran through the previous

Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the Foreign Secretary reached an agreement before the general election. Two years into this Parliament, however, we still have had no announcement.

Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like a modern management approach to reforming government. There was no attempt in my statement or in the White Paper to conceal anything from him or the House. On the contrary, I made sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) had a copy of the statement a full hour before I made it, and a copy of the White Paper. That was much better than the treatment that we used to receive when we were in opposition and some Tory Members were Ministers. I will take no criticism from anyone about concealing anything. The two Tory Front Benchers had more than enough time, and more than we were ever allowed, to study Government statements.
On the second part of the question put by the hon. Gentleman, we have no proposals yet.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend proposes that 100 per cent. of government services should be capable of electronic delivery by 2008. That remarkable proposition will transform people's lives in ways that they currently find it difficult to understand. Can we go a stage further by considering the introduction of national identity cards, which would produce huge benefits to government in savings, the reduction of fraud and service delivery? Surely, only by introducing a national identity card can we fulfil the real ambition that my right hon. Friend has shown.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. It is revolutionary to propose that all government services should be accessible using information technology systems. That is a target that we shall work towards, although it will not mean that everyone will have to use information technology to access services.
On my hon. Friend's second point about identity cards, I have made it clear that there is no proposal in the White Paper to introduce a compulsory card. These days, a great many people—probably the majority of the population—carry a whole series of cards that readily identify them. For that reason, some heat has gone out of the issue. We have no proposal to introduce compulsory identity cards.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that the statement was packed full of jargon that is every bit as much of a barrier between the general public and whatever it is that the Government are trying to convey to them as Sir Humphrey Appleby-speak would be?
The statement listed as a new initiative the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. Was that not announced last July? It is not a new initiative at all. How many more initiatives announced today had been announced already?

Dr. Cunningham: The Centre for Management and Policy Studies is a new initiative. The first important


decision has been made: Professor Ron Amman has been appointed to head the centre and will be in post from June. From then on, the centre will be fully established as quickly as possible.

Ms Tess Kingham: I am pleased to see on page 60 of the White Paper a commitment to improving the system of public appointments. I recently participated in selecting chairs of NHS trusts under the current system, and found it desperately unsatisfactory—I understand that it was inherited from the previous Government. The system is opaque and shrouded in mystery. It places too much power in the hands of too few unelected people, and those who have not been selected do not know the results until the last minute. The current system is not a good way to recognise the hard work that many people put into many years of public service. Will my right hon. Friend improve the system and ensure that it is transparent and open? There must be a better way to reward public service and make it more accountable.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. More than 100,000 people participate in public life through service on boards, trusts and advisory and executive bodies, so it is a big issue. We need to change significantly the system that we inherited from the previous Administration, and we propose to do that, as set out in the White Paper on page 60 under the heading "Public appointments". Today, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office had discussions with representatives from all Departments to initiate those changes.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Many of us who listened to the Minister's statement will have asked, "Where is the beef?" How will he improve on government? For a long time, I have criticised the time that it takes for Ministers to respond. Members of Parliament are most closely involved with Ministers, but it can still take more than three months to get a simple answer to a simple letter. What is the point of linking all Ministers to the internet if, in the latest edition of the list of Ministers' addresses, only four Ministries include the e-mail addresses of their Ministers, despite the fact that almost all Ministries can be contacted by e-mail?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat confused. The White Paper is not describing an

event or announcing additional expenditure: it is describing a process of change which will have to be managed over a period of years. His first question demonstrates his lack of understanding of what we are trying to address and how we intend to change the situation.
I take the hon. Gentleman's second point more seriously, because he is right in saying that we need constantly to examine the performance of Departments and Government agencies. We shall do that. New standards were announced last July and I am reviewing that and tightening up the procedures. I agree that people, whether they are Members of Parliament or members of the public, should not have to wait months and months for a reply.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend will agree that he need take no lessons from Opposition Members who, when in government for 18 years, seemed to know the cost of everything but, when it came to public service, the value of nothing. They contributed more than any other factor to the demoralisation of staff and the degradation of their services. My right hon. Friend took the opportunity in his statement to commend the potential of people working in the public service. How will he release the enormous potential and commitment of people in the public service? Will he recognise that, just as the dead hand of bureaucracy frustrates members of the public, it also frustrates public servants who know that, if they were able to exercise more discretion and flexibility in their work, they could provide a far better service to the public?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have much to learn about using the talents, skills and knowledge of people in the public service more effectively than we have in the past. The new Centre for Management and Policy Studies is one way to ensure that people, through their training and skilling, will be as sharp and adept as the best private sector managers in managing large public expenditure budgets.
At the other end of the scale, we need to ensure that people in the front line of providing services get a much fuller opportunity to persuade their middle managers and, for that matter, Ministers, that they better understand how services can be made more accessible—or more user friendly, to use jargon that I know Conservative Members will hate—and how we can better serve the public.

Points of Order

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the resignation of the chief inspector of the Office for Standards in Education because I knew that the Government have received evidence that he did not tell the truth and attempted to cover up a matter of public interest. Today, I have received a copy of the Bristol Evening Post, in which numerous teachers confirm that Mr. Woodhead sought to mislead the Government. Has the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said whether, in view of all the publicity and the claims being made, he will make a statement on what is developing into a serious situation?

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication that a statement is to be made on that issue today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office that they would like to report to the House on contacts yesterday, and possibly today, with the Russians on Kosovo?

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue.

Sexual Offences (Anonymity of Defendants)

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the anonymity of teachers, etc. accused of sexual offences against children in relation to whom they are in a position of trust; and for connected purposes.
Last year, 700 people attended the funeral of Nick Drewett, a 31-year-old teacher in my constituency. He was a popular, committed teacher who took his own life when facing charges of behaving improperly with pupils in his care. The master who was charged with him was subsequently acquitted.
A significant factor in Nick Drewett's decision to commit suicide was the sensational publicity that attended the investigation of the charges. Sadly, he is not alone. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has had recent experience of three members who have taken their own lives in similar circumstances. Since 1991, there have been 974 police investigations into abuse allegations made against NAS/UWT members. In 792 of them, no grounds were discovered for prosecution. Publicity in 80 per cent. of those cases did serious injustice to innocent teachers. The Bill attempts to protect teachers from injustice that can do them permanent professional and personal damage.
There is a popular view that an allegation of child abuse, unsubstantiated by investigation, is in itself sufficient cause for concern to disqualify permanently a teacher from being in charge of children. There is little awareness that teachers are liable to be the victims of false or malicious allegations. It is therefore just to take measures to ensure that teachers as well as complainants undergo investigation with their identities protected. That is what the Bill aims to achieve.
I am grateful to the NAS/UWT for its help with the Bill and for supporting data. I am also grateful to the National Association of Head Teachers for its support. Teachers are particularly vulnerable to such allegations because of the nature of their job. Regrettably, often because of wide publicity given to cases, pupils know that such allegations can cost a teacher his or her job. Some pupils have had no compunction in seeking maliciously to make allegations against teachers whom they dislike.
The press has endless opportunities to obtain such stories. Cases are often reported to it at the investigation stage by a variety of people, including the parents of the child concerned, other parents who have heard rumours, and pupils. It is not unknown for the police to assist the press with its inquiries. Press coverage includes the usual harassment of those under investigation to obtain photographs and statements. The combination of sex and teaching does not make for restrained reporting. Sensational news stories are allowed to identify teachers.
Allegations against teachers are investigated under the Children Act 1989. The practical effect of its operation is to reverse the normal criminal law convention. Teachers are suspended and then investigated. The experience of teachers accused of child abuse is that they are presumed guilty by police and social services. In Nick Drewett's case, the assumptions made by the police, no doubt reinforced by the publicity, contributed to his depressive state. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?
The Bill would not mean that teachers were not suspended while investigations were carried out—a harrowing experience for innocent teachers—but it tries to deliver the simple principle of innocent until proven guilty in the climate that surrounds child abuse allegations today.
Bizarrely, the National Union of Teachers does not appear to support the principle of innocent until proven guilty for its members. It has declined to support the Bill as
it will protect the guilty as well as the innocent … there is potential that the Bill could shield those guilty of serious crimes until after court proceedings are concluded".
I find the contrast between the NAS/UWT and the NUT most marked. One organisation represents teachers and the other seems more concerned with politically correct posturing. It will be for teachers to decide which organisation best represents their interests, but members of the NUT will have to take comfort from the fact that their union believes that a Department for Education and Employment circular will restrain the press from traducing the reputation of innocent teachers and that an
accurate controlled statement will stem the spread of gossip and local publicity".
It appears that the NUT does not live in the same world as you and me, Madam Speaker.
Once publicity is given to a case, even after the teacher has been cleared, dismissal or inability to return to work are probable outcomes. Even where the school and its governors are supportive, the publicity can cause serious damage to the teacher. It causes major problems at home, at the workplace of the teacher's partner and at the schools of their children. Health breakdown is not unusual in such cases. The effects of the publicity are devastating not only for the teacher but for his or her family. Constructive dismissal can result because the teacher's position, as a consequence of publicity, often becomes untenable. For example, parents, having read the press coverage and operating on the principle of no smoke without fire, may choose to remove their child from the school. Governors often bow to that pressure.
If our objective is to make education top of our social priorities, the status of the teaching profession is central to that objective. That status should be reinforced and supported by our laws, not undermined by them. No longer should unsubstantiated publicity destroy a professional reputation built up over years, if not decades. If the climate of suspicion and anger that surrounds allegations can be restrained by limiting publicity to the issues and not allowing it to extend to personalities in advance of conviction, the Bill should allow the genuine allegations of sexual abuse to be made more readily. The current system, while it serves to blacken the reputation of innocent teachers accused, also ensures a sensational and sometimes hysterical atmosphere, in which a child and the parents must deal with reporting an offence. That hurdle to reporting an offence would be reduced by the Bill.
The Bill would not only assist teachers and pupils directly involved in allegations of sexual abuse, but contribute to a climate of support for the profession as a whole. Teacher training colleges continue to report a shortage of men training to become primary school

teachers. There has been much discussion about the consequences of the absence of male role models for many children, not least those of single mothers. However, if we encourage a climate of paranoia and suspicion, it is hardly surprising that many young men are unwilling to enter the profession. The Bill offers the profession some protection against false allegations and it should lead to men more readily entering the profession and doing so with more confidence.
There is injustice when the principle of innocent until proven guilty is in effect overturned by publicity. There is a general principle of open, transparent justice, but when the sensational handling of cases has the effect of undermining justice, the requirement for open justice must be balanced by the requirement for justice itself. Victims of sexual offences are already accorded that protection.
I hope that the House will accept my Bill as a way of preventing more victims from being created among the teaching profession by salacious publicity in the media climate in which we all have to operate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Bercow, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Mr. Tim Loughton.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (ANONYMITY OF DEFENDANTS)

Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the anonymity of teachers, etc. accused of sexual offences against children in relation to whom they are in a position of trust; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 78].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

DELIBERATE RELEASE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS

That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 6378/98, relating to a draft Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms; and endorses the Government's approach in the negotiations.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Employment Relations Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 11

COMPENSATORY AWARD ETC: REMOVAL OF LIMIT IN CERTAIN CASES

'.—(1) After section 124(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (limit of compensatory award etc) there shall be inserted—
(1A) Subsection (1) shall not apply to compensation awarded, or a compensatory award made, to a person in a case where he is regarded as unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 100, 103A, 105(3) or 105(6A).
(2) Section 127B of that Act (power to specify method of calculation of compensation where dismissal a result of protected disclosure) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 166 and 65.

Mr. Byers: Most Members will be aware that one of the proposals contained in the Bill is to raise to £50,000 the level of compensation for unfair dismissal. The Government have given careful consideration to the level of compensation for those people who are covered by the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. At present, no compensation levels have been laid down in respect of that Act. We believe that the time is right to protect whistleblowers by announcing the level of compensation to which they will be entitled and by indicating when we intend to introduce and make effective the provisions in the Act.
New clause 11 provides that the compensation for people covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act will be unlimited. We believe that the £50,000 limit that will apply in other cases of unfair dismissal will be inappropriate for those individuals coming within the remit of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Act was broadly welcomed on both sides of the House. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who was responsible for introducing an earlier measure on that subject, is in the Chamber.
It is appropriate to delimit the level of compensation to which an individual is entitled. However, we believe that we can go further than that. Another group of individuals can be subject to victimisation and discrimination in the workplace: those who have responsibility for health and safety matters. We have been giving detailed consideration to the level of compensation that should be awarded to individuals who take action on health and safety grounds and, as a result, are unfairly dismissed by their employer. Such individuals should not be restricted to the £50,000 limit on compensation that would normally apply. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that

new clause 11 will ensure that those individuals will also be entitled to unlimited compensation should they be unfairly dismissed.

Mr. John Bercow: I understand the rationale behind the proposed new clause. However, given that it could affect businesses operating in the private sector, including small businesses, what account will be taken of the circumstances of those businesses? Such businesses could be forced under, if the new clause is rigorously enforced without regard to their circumstances.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman leads me to the next group of amendments, when we shall discuss the position of small businesses. It is important that the House sends out a clear message to those who are employed in a responsible position and who make a disclosure in the public interest, and to those who ensure that organisations comply with health and safety requirements. There is a common interest and I hope that the House will agree that our approach, whereby unfair dismissal compensation is increased to £50,000 other than in two exceptional sets of circumstances—those individuals covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and those who deal with health and safety matters—in which compensation will be unlimited, is the right one. The real objective must be to create the climate in which health and safety issues are addressed properly in the workplace and individuals can ensure that there is proper disclosure where that is appropriate.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new provision will deter employers who should know better from paying less attention than they should to serious issues of health and safety at work?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a litany of cases in which people were unable to expose wrongdoing at their place of work with tragic consequences. I have examples of cases that would have been covered both by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the unlimited compensation that we intend to offer. Let us take the case of Bristol Royal infirmary, in which a responsible whistleblower, Stephen Bolsin, raised concerns about the deaths of babies at that hospital. Those concerns were not properly addressed and we know the tragic consequences. There is now a Government inquiry looking into the details of that case.
In the case of the Clapham rail crash, it was known that loose wiring was a risk to the travelling public, but staff were reluctant to speak out, resulting in tragic and unnecessary loss of human life. Health and safety issues arose in the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster. The Cullen inquiry reported that:
workers did not want to put their continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue which might embarrass management.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hesitate to say this, because it is slightly ungenerous, but all those cases were cited by hon. Members on both sides of the House to push the Government towards the principle of uncapped compensation; at the time, the Government were not having any of it. Although I welcome the introduction of these provisions, the


Secretary of State should not attempt to claim credit by giving examples that were previously advanced and rejected by the Government.

Mr. Byers: I am trying to make the point that we recognise that. In response to the intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), I am describing events that occurred because the provisions that are now being introduced were not in place. That is why I am pleased to be introducing a measure that will ensure that compensation is uncapped—a measure for which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has argued for many years. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his efforts to ensure that the Public Interest Disclosure Act reached the statute book. He campaigned strongly for that legislation for many years, often in opposition to the view of the previous Conservative Government. He stuck to his principles and the Act reflects his endeavours, and the provisions being passed this afternoon are the final element in establishing an effective and proper compensation regime.
There are many cases in which public interest was important, and the House must send out a clear message underlining how seriously we regard that issue. To say that compensation will be unlimited is the best possible demonstration of the importance we attach to that matter. An even better outcome would be that we succeed in fostering a climate of openness and transparency in which individuals in the workplace do not feel that they will be victimised if they draw attention to wrongdoing or to a work practice that might compromise health and safety. That is what we should aim for, and I hope that businesses, including small business, will adopt best practice to ensure that the measures we are introducing today will never need to be used, because the climate has been created that precludes the occurrence of such wrongdoing.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State again, but an important principle is at stake. In other Government legislation emanating from his Department, Ministers have recognised the difference between small and large companies—for example, the Competition Act 1998 makes provision for fines that depend upon turnover. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman at least concede the argument for taking specific account of the circumstances of small businesses in implementing the new clause? That is not an unreasonable proposition, and it certainly does not seek to detract from the force or the logic of his argument.

Mr. Byers: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was more knowledgable than he actually is about the method of dealing with such matters. I hope that my response will be informative and helpful.
Any tribunal can take account of the size of an organisation or company in deciding whether an approach has been fair and reasonable in particular circumstances. I am pleased to put that on the record. If a small business does not have the amount of back-up that is available to a larger company, the tribunal can take that factor into account in deciding the appropriate level of compensation to apply. I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that extending this provision to those involved in health and safety matters sends an important message. The Health and Safety Executive produced clear evidence

to show that, when a proper consultation mechanism was in place to address health and safety matters, the number of accidents in the workplace decreased by 50 per cent. A real benefit can materialise for effective health and safety measures. I do not believe that many cases will reach the tribunal stage—at least, I hope not—but it is appropriate that the House gives clear notice today of its priorities.
Amendment No. 166 would limit the amount of compensation to be paid. Hon. Members will know that clause 12 provides that an individual may complain to a tribunal that his or her employer has failed to comply with the provisions of clause 11, which entitles an individual to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. There is no limit on the award that can be made, and it is right to take this opportunity to clarify the position.
We intend to link the amount with the upper limit on a week's pay, which is currently specified in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At present, it decrees the maximum amount as £220 a week, which will be index linked in the future. We propose that there should be two weeks at £220 a week, providing a maximum amount of compensation of £440—I hope that my mathematics have not let me down on this occasion. That is the maximum amount provided under the amendment.
We feel that it is right to clarify the position, and we believe that that strikes a just and reasonable balance. I hope that the House can agree to new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 65 and 166.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for the Report stage. We understand that other obligations make it difficult for him to appear before Committees, although it is not unknown for Secretaries of State to do so. His presence in the Chamber gives me an opportunity to say on behalf of the official Opposition that we are sorry that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is still unwell. We understand the circumstances and we do not wish to press him to return. We simply record that we are missing him and his lively contributions to our discussions. While I am handing out the bouquets, I must say that I am pleased to see the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the Chamber. He did very well in Committee in trying to respond at short notice to at least some of our concerns. Bearing in mind that we have much business ahead of us, I now address new clause 11.
I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose the new clause, but we remain gravely concerned about circumstances relating to the Bill's formulation and presentation. The new clause has been thrown at us, and if I may be at all critical, I point out that given that it alludes to previous legislation and that its words do not leap off the page coherently, it would have been helpful if the Secretary of State had had the time, which he clearly did not, to share with Opposition spokesmen the import of the proposals that he was intending to put to the House. However, he has explained the new clause and we do not find it objectionable in principle.
I shall deal first with amendment No. 166, because amendment No. 65 is merely a repealing amendment. Amendment No. 166 relates to the maximum level of compensation. I chose not to move an amendment on that in Committee to facilitate proceedings. I was concerned, however, about the other end of the compensation scale


and whether it is necessary to pay compensation at all if no loss has occurred. The Government have acknowledged that there should be a reasonable limit on compensation in proceedings relating to clause 12. We accept that.
On the more important issue of public interest relating to the new clause, the Secretary of State made a persuasive case, but I have a question and a couple of comments. As I understand the Secretary of State, the circumstances under that new clause are confined to matters of public disclosure or health and safety disclosure and do not apply to other compensation or special awards relating to, for example, trade union participation or otherwise. We had an interesting debate in Committee, in which I made the point that one of the possible side effects of the Government's proposals for special awards would be to reduce the level of compensation in particular cases. That remains the case under these proposals, apart from the two specific provisions.
On the substance of the matter, the Secretary of State responded, second time around, to the concerns about small businesses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which I intended to voice myself. It is, perhaps, significant that the examples that the Secretary of State cited to the House were disasters which should never have happened involving large corporations. Although such companies might not welcome an unlimited claim for damages, they certainly would not find it difficult to pay a damages claim limited to £40,000 or £50,000 and they might be able to stand the rap for a fairly substantial fine. That would be much more difficult for a small concern.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be within the power and competence of a tribunal to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the degree of culpability and the resources of the firm—in other words, whether it will be bust by an unlimited award. I imagine, as the Secretary of State hopes, that that is not likely to happen frequently.
Another point that needs to be clarified is proportionality. In any case, the tribunal will consider the proportionality of the circumstances and will not automatically be required to set a compensatory award above, for example, what would be the limit for other cases of unfair dismissal. It would have regard to the circumstances, how bad the offence was and how much the metaphorical whistle had to be blown. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his response to the debate?
This matter has concerned many hon. Members and some of us have personal concerns on health and safety. Given the context in which the public interest legislation has been proposed and accepted, we accept the Secretary of State's presentation, and look forward to any further comments by hon. Members.

Mr. John Healey: I begin by declaring an interest—an active though not registerable one. I was a trustee—I am still a member of the council of management—of the charity Public Concern at Work, which, along with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), did so much to get the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 on the statute book.
I welcome the new clause very strongly, as I know does Public Concern at Work. The proposal to remove the limit on compensation payments for whistleblowers was widely and strongly welcomed and backed by a range of consultees, including the CBI, the Trades Union Congress and a number of key professional groups.
It takes special courage and a special person to blow the whistle on malpractice in the workplace. They often suffer loss of a job, an income and career prospects—not to mention isolation, pressure and sometimes intimidation, especially in the early stages of making such a move. The cases of Maxwell, Barlow Clowes, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and a host of lower profile and smaller examples of whistleblowing underline the need for people to be able to report malpractice with confidence. Any cap on compensation would have limited the effectiveness of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to do the job that we need it to do.
The new clause means that middle managers in industry, doctors in the national health service and even civil servants in Whitehall will be properly protected if they raise and pursue their concerns responsibly. To that extent, the new clause sends out strong encouragement to those who might be considering blowing the whistle on malpractice where they work. I welcome the same provision for health and safety representatives, which simply underlines the importance of health and safety in the workplace.
I had thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was poised to make an announcement on the commencement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It is important that an announcement be made in good time—at least a couple of months before we propose that the PIDA comes into force—not least to give diligent employers time to put in place proper internal procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend might later today be able to announce in the House when the Act will commence. I leave him with this thought: the Act was enacted on 2 July 1998. Would it not be fitting if we marked its first anniversary with commencement?

Mr. Shepherd: My thunder has been stolen by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), because he made the points that I would also make. I pay great tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who throughout discussions on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill was a Trojan worker for a sense of justice in this very important area.
As the hon. Member for Wentworth said, it is extremely difficult for honourable people to surrender what might be their family's income by disclosing something for which the Act offers protection: a disclosure that is in the public interest. The public interest is the wider interest of us all, as a society.
It is right that the Government were very nervous about extending compensation along the lines of that available for race or sexual incidents. I am very pleased that, on reflection, they have taken on board the work of the charity behind much of the campaign. The Solicitor-General was also a trustee of that charity. A wide body of opinion had formed behind the campaign. At any time, my Front-Bench team could have stopped the Public Interest Disclosure Bill becoming law. I therefore pay tribute to them, too.
We are seized of the notion that certain wrongs have happened about which people knew. Barlow Clowes is a very good example; we know of Maxwell, too. Many such instances may be going on even now, concerning which highly paid people in the City or elsewhere will not surrender their jobs for fear that they will never be employed again. The measure will therefore give the tribunal the opportunity to judge what is appropriate when an employer has so wilfully disregarded the law in terms of compliance with that Act. I give a cheer for that and I welcome what the Government and the Secretary of State are doing.
On the commencement date, it is nearly a year since the PIDA was enacted. The hon. Member for Wentworth made a valiant point: companies must be in a position to prepare themselves and to ensure that their systems for coping with such circumstances are set up properly. We are into a new world, I hope, where our country will be the better, for when individuals know of wrongdoing that has implications, they will know that our law will support them in the quest for justice.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I raise this point as a point of order, because it is not strictly connected with the Bill. Will the Secretary of State make a statement, given the announcement by Professor Joachim Milberg, the chairman and chief executive of BMW, on
the slow pace of negotiations with the UK Government over"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I really cannot see that that has any place in the proceedings at present. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no notification of a request for a Government statement on that matter. We are dealing with the Employment Relations Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State might like to comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will resist the temptation. We are discussing the Employment Relations Bill.

Mr. Byers: I shall, as always, try to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your clear guidance.
A number of issues were raised during the debate and I welcome the tenor of the remarks that have been made. As several hon. Members have said, the PIDA had all-party support in the House, which is why we were able to get it on the statute book last year. Hon. Members have asked about commencement. The Government's objective is for the Act to commence in the very near future. I want to work towards the Act being in operation, with appropriate notification to employers, to meet the anniversary of its enactment. That is a good target to set ourselves. Now that I have said that, hon. Members will want to keep me to it; I shall be pleased to be kept to my task of achieving that particular objective.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is absolutely right that the proposals in new clause 11 are restricted to examples covered by the PIDA and to issues related to health and safety matters, and do not go beyond that. I hope that that reassurance is helpful. On the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)

and reinforced from his Front Bench, tribunals will be able to take into account the circumstances of a particular employer, including its size, in deciding whether it has acted reasonably or unreasonably, and thus whether the dismissal is fair or not.
The important aspect is that compensation must be suitable to the particular circumstances, a point that was raised from the Opposition Front Bench. Whistleblowers must have unlimited compensation because they are often in positions of great responsibility and at the higher end of the salary range. So going beyond the cap of £50,000 would be appropriate.
I confirm for the hon. Member for Daventry that there is no question of exemplary damages being applicable. The measure will give the tribunal the opportunity to award beyond £50,000, if that is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case before it.
I hope that I have been able to address hon. Members' concerns and that we can agree to new clause 11 and the consequential amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

SMALL EMPLOYERS' EXEMPTION

.'—(1) The additional individual rights conferred by sections 8 to 21 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act shall not apply to any worker unless the employer of that worker, taken with any associated employer or employers, employs—

(a) at least 51 workers on the day in respect of which the employee claims the right, or
(b) an average of at least 51 workers in the 13 weeks ending with that day, to be determined in accordance with the methodology established under paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(2) The lower of the two figures in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) shall be known as the qualifying limit.
(3) The Secretary of State may make an Order modifying the qualifying limit for workers, or applying, varying or disapplying any rights conferred under this Act for workers employed in numbers below the qualifying limit, but no such order may be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) An Order under subsection 3 may make provision for the continuation of employment rights mentioned in subsection (1) and already enjoyed by an individual worker or workers at the time of the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Microbusiness exemption—

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State may by Order disapply or modify such rights of individual workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (but excluding any rights conferred under that Act by the provisions of this Act) as he deems appropriate in the interests of businesses employing 10 or fewer workers (or such lesser or greater number as he may by Order specify from time to time).
(2) An Order under subsection (1) shall not apply to rights already enjoyed by individual workers at the time at the passing of this Act.


(3) No Order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 5, in schedule 1, page 19, line 39, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
Amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 40, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68.

Mr. Redwood: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential on new clause 1, should the House agree to that, and I have no objection to Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68, subject to anything that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary may wish to say by explanation.
I remind the House that I have declared an interest in certain companies in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not speaking on their behalf or at their request today, but all companies are obviously affected by these new clauses and amendments, so it is right that I should remind the House of those interests.
I thought it curious that the Secretary of State was so generous to whistleblowers but not others until I remembered that it is to a whistleblower that he owes his job. We were grateful to the whistleblower who exposed the goings-on at the Department under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It was good that we were able to find common cause on the issue of whistleblowers in the first exchanges.
I hope that we can make similar progress by tempting the Secretary of State to live up to the fine rhetoric that he has placed in the newspapers in recent weeks about the need to deregulate. Some of the words which have been planted in the press, perhaps at his request, allegedly on his behalf, could have been uttered by me. They were fine deregulatory statements, saying that the costs of business must be cut, that the burdens on business must be reduced, that the Government have at last got the deregulatory message coming loud and clear from businesses, small, medium and large.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think that, with regard to deregulation, that is just rhetoric, not actual delivery? Could that be why Joachim Milberg today said that BMW is thinking of moving the Longbridge operation to Hungary, where there is not only little regulation but low pay and no excessive charges on top of employment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will take a gentle reminder from me that that can hardly be answered in the context of small employers.

Mr. Redwood: I take your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is noted for his persistence and I know that he has the interests of all British business at heart. With your permission, I shall answer within order by saying that I fear that, on the issue of deregulation in general, and deregulation for small businesses in particular, there will be many more words than actions from the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman has a marvellous opportunity tonight to prove me wrong. if he would like to intervene at this moment and welcome the new clause, I would

forgo the advantage of the rest of my speech, congratulate him warmly and say that he has at last understood some of our message on deregulation. However, I see the right hon. Gentleman is not about to leap to his feet, so I fear that we must tease him a little further about the big gap that is growing between the rhetoric, the spin, in the unattributable briefings in the press and the reality of a Government who put cost upon cost, burden upon burden, regulatory requirement upon regulatory requirement upon small and big businesses alike.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend, as the House knows, is renowned for his generosity of spirit, but on this occasion, I hope that he will not over-egg the rhetorical pudding. To that end, does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the course of 46 minutes of speech from the Secretary of State during the Budget debate—a 36-minute opening speech and a 10-minute statement on enterprise and competition—the word "deregulation" did not come forth from his lips once?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has a better memory than I do, but I am sure that he is right. It would be a notable omission to go through such a speech with no reference to deregulation. But that is symptomatic. There has been no such reference in the House of Commons because my hon. Friends or I might cross-examine the right hon. Gentleman and discover that there is no back-up to the rhetoric that he wishes business chiefs outside to believe. This is a regulatory Government who are presiding over an industrial crisis. We propose this modest measure of relief for small business because we are worried by the climate now confronting small industrial companies in particular.
5 pm
Let us consider today's news. The pound hit a new high against the euro this morning: there has been a 7 per cent. or more devaluation of the euro in three months. BMW says that it still has not settled its future at Longbridge despite long and protracted negotiations, and that threatens many firms that depend on the jobs at that most important plant. Four hundred jobs have disappeared at Marks and Spencer, and there is a strike at National Power. What is the Government's answer to all that? Yet more regulations, which interfere with the rather good employee relations we left the Government when we were removed from office, and yet more costs to be placed on small and big business at a time when it is already too dear to make certain products in Britain. The Government have gone out of their way to make it too dear to make goods in Britain by having a high exchange rate, high interest rate, high tax and high regulatory cost policies, which they have pursued come hell or high water over the whole of their two years in office.
In the lifetime of this Parliament, small and big firms face £8 billion of extra charges from the national minimum wage bureaucracy and policy; £6.65 billion extra costs for the working time directive; £85 million for European works councils; £110 million extra for parental leave; and £90 million extra for the Food Standards Agency. That is on top of the massive stealth taxes, wealth taxes and company income taxes that have been imposed through the back door in three successive Budgets. It is no wonder that small business now finds it extremely difficult to prosper, and we see factory closure after


factory closure day after day, and redundancy after redundancy as the full impact of these taxes and extra costs is felt.
Worse still, from the Secretary of State's point of view, is the fact that the big impact is in his constituency and in the constituencies of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the northern and midlands manufacturing heartlands. I am glad to say that it is not being felt in my constituency.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman should stand against me.

Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State rather foolishly says that I should stand against him in his constituency. Why should I let my constituents down? Why should I throw away all that hard work for them, and why should I have to apologise to him for the fact that, despite Labour Government policies, they are prosperous and succeeding and do not have an unemployment problem? I have every right, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, to speak out for his constituents if he fails to do so. The industrialists and the industrial employees in his constituency and in neighbouring areas are getting tired of the Government, who are long on promises and short on delivery. They are unable to understand that their policies are doing enormous damage to industry and companies in that part of the world.
The Secretary of State, in his rhetoric, says that this legislation is about a new culture of partnership. How can he believe that, when the Bill is about compelling people and companies to do things that they otherwise would not voluntarily agree among themselves to do? His idea of partnership is like the idea of partnership entered into between the chicken and the pig for the breakfast business: it might be all right for the chicken, but not very good for the pig. The Government have such a partnership in mind in this legislation.
Our proposal would exempt all small firms with 50 employees or fewer from the impact of the Bill. It would not prevent them from going ahead by voluntary agreement with best or better practice than is recommended in the legislation. It would not prevent them from offering even better terms and conditions of employment to their staff. Many of them already do, and I hope that many of them will be able to do so in the future.
Does the Secretary of State realise that if a firm has fewer than 50 employees it is possible for the boss to know them all, to like them all, to have individual business relationships with every one of them, to understand their requirements and needs and to negotiate with each of them on what is best in their circumstances? He can negotiate individually on hours, pay, conditions and family circumstances. There can be give and take between employees and the employer: employees understand that in a small firm there has to be more give and take on their part as well. If there is not, the life of the small firm may be jeopardised.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not opt for a limit of 100, 150 or 200 rather than 50, given what he has said? If he were sincere, he would admit that he does not want any of this legislation: he does not want any additional rights for any

workers, or the partnership and prosperity in industry that it envisages. Why does he not come clean and say that we should get rid of the 50 limit and abolish the lot?

Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will see that it gives power for the number to be varied. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I discussed the matter, and decided to go for a modest proposal. We are offering it seriously, because we hoped that the Government might accept it. We had read all the rhetoric suggesting that they were now very worried about small firms.
As I have just explained, in a company employing 50 people or fewer, it is normal for the employer to know all those individuals, to have hired them personally and to be able to negotiate with them separately. That might be a little more difficult with 100 or more employees. Personally, I favour the 100 figure, and some small business organisations have made representations to us suggesting that we opt for it, but we chose the more modest figure, because it can be convincingly argued that, in a firm employing 50 people or fewer, the problems resulting from the introduction of a statutory framework applying to much bigger companies will be greater. In a company with 50 or fewer employees, employer and employee will obviously know each other, and will be able to work things out on an individual basis.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and his right hon. and hon. Friends may be interested to hear some of the views of the business community, if they are not sure about my powers of persuasion. The London chamber of commerce and industry is very worried by the alarming increase in costs. In one of its recent press releases, it says that the Government's measures
will result in added costs and bureaucracy for firms when they are already having to comply with the Working Time regulations and preparing for the minimum wage legislation… Furthermore, measures such as the introduction of parental leave will be a greater burden on small firms than on large ones. We want the Government to lighten these burdens on small firms".
Surely the Government want London to prosper. Do they not understand that jobs are more likely to be created in the difficult areas of London by small firms than by large ones? That is the historical experience, and it is the likelihood for the future. Jobs are created much more in the United States of America, where there is a larger population of small firms, than on the continent of Europe, which relies on large firms and ends up with mass unemployment.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making an particularly important point about London following the representations that he has received from the London chamber of commerce and industry, which—as I know from my former professional capacity—does an excellent job.
The LCCI has further cause for concern. Not only will these measures hit small businesses in the capital; there will also be road user charges and parking charges. Let us at least get these measures right, so that small businesses can survive to face the other imposts that the Government have in mind.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of London. As he knows, there is high unemployment in parts of the capital, which will be


particularly badly hit by yet more costs of the kind that he describes, in addition to those that we are discussing. They will have a bigger impact on many businesses that would otherwise be able to create some of the jobs that we all want to see.
The Government love quoting the Confederation of British Industry, with which they seem to think they have a special relationship. I do not think that they can have been reading the CBI policy statements of recent months; if they had, they would have noted that on most issues the CBI is now more in line with the Opposition than with the Government, because of the damage that the Government have been doing to the interests of larger as well as smaller companies.
According to the most recent statement by the CBI's director general, published in the Financial Times this month:
Good employee relations should be built on trust and this is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not where there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and indeed the legislation proved to be unworkable.
Exactly. I am worried that the Bill will prove to be most unworkable in the sector that is most at risk: the smaller firms sector.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I used to run a broadcast electronics company: one might say, an engineering company. Is he aware that the Engineering Employers Federation says that small engineering companies will be stifled by the Bill? Is he further aware that the CBI is also saying that the Department of Trade and Industry has over-egged the directives from Brussels and that there can be no future for engineering if such small firms are stifled at birth?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is ahead of me because I was going to refer to the plight of engineering firms. He is right to say that the Engineering Employers Federation is worried by the changes. It stated in January:
The proposed changes to the law on industrial action will inevitably change the industrial relations climate and may make industrial action more common.
It said elsewhere that it was against the measures because it feared that they would be yet another blow to the independence and success of small and large engineering companies alike.
The Institute of Directors has been even tougher in its opposition to the Bill. That may come as no surprise to the Secretary of State, but the IOD may be right; he should bear that in mind as a possibility. It has stated:
The Bill is entirely inconsistent with its"—
the Government's—
objective of creating a competitive economy. The legislation imposes a raft of new costs and burdens on firms, including compulsory trade union recognition, higher compensation for unfair dismissal and the Parental Leave Directive. These measures will sap the competitiveness of British Firms.
The Institute of Personnel Directors is against the proposals. The Chemical Industries Association has also said that it is worried about the measures. It says that it

does not welcome the Bill and thinks that there are alternative ways in which to promote partnership which fall short of the compulsion in the Bill.
On the specific matter of small firm exemption, the CBI proposed that the threshold should be raised to 50—another part of our case in going for the lower number, rather than 100. The CBI says:
Members believe that direct relations between management and employees is the norm in businesses with far more than 20 employees.
It proposes 50 as a reasonable, prudent guess of a sensible limit. The British Chambers of Commerce has also said that 50 is a reasonable limit, rather than the 20 in the Bill.
The Federation of Small Businesses has proposed a threshold of 100 and would obviously prefer 50 to the threshold in the legislation. It is worth dwelling on its quotes because it speaks for many small businesses. Its voice should be heard in our important debate. In a press release in February, the federation stated:
Small firms are now being over-regulated to such a degree that it is too costly and too risky to employ staff … The provisions of the Employment Relations Bill will place them under further pressure and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit will mean the onus of administering more benefits falling on to employers.
In an earlier submission, it made it clear that it was against the union measures in the White Paper and draft legislation. Firms across the spectrum—the CBI, the IOD, small firms and chambers of commerce—are saying that they do not want the legislation and that, if we have to have it, small firms must be exempted because they behave differently and would be particularly vulnerable to its measures. Will not the Government listen?
The Government came to office saying that they were going to be different, that they would listen and understand, that they cared about companies. We now have the united voice of business. We have the united voice of the Opposition. We are all telling the Secretary of State the same thing. We are telling him that his rhetoric in the newspapers on deregulation is promising, but that the actions in the Bill show that he does not mean a word of it. We are giving him a simple way out of the conundrum by asking for a modest improvement: an exemption of small firms with up to 50 employees.
5.15 pm
We have just heard from the Minister for the Cabinet Office something about "joined-up government". That is an extraordinary idea from this Government, who have nothing joined up about them at all and who make disjointed statements from day to day, based on their idea of media management and what might make a good headline or news story the following day.
We are told that there is to be a regulatory impact assessment for every new measure that is proposed. Whoopee, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but that is not new. There have been cost assessments of regulations for many years. We want the Government to produce honest assessments, rather than fiddled ones, and then to understand what the assessments are telling them. The regulatory cost assessments of these and other measures that the Government have introduced should be telling them that they are taking too much money out of British business, and that the reason why factories are closing and people are being sacked day by day in the industrial sector has something to do with the Government's policy.
If the Government take out too much in tax and regulation and push sterling too high, it will become difficult to compete and jobs will be lost. We do not want more regulatory impact assessments. We want the Government to come up with some honest figures, to understand the voice of business, to understand what business is saying and to do something about it.
The Secretary of State's usual defence is to say that the previous Government introduced regulations. That is quite true; they did, and those regulations also increased costs. However, the Secretary of State is proposing far more expensive and damaging regulations than did the previous Government, on top of the regulations introduced by that Government. If the Secretary of State wished to identify regulations introduced by the previous Government that he thought we could do without, nobody would be more delighted than I. I am sure that I could persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to see the wisdom of repealing those regulations, as well as those that he is proposing. We would be delighted. Rather the sinner repenteth before it is too late than that the sinner should go on to his inevitable doom.
We are giving the Secretary of State a chance to repent with new clause 2. As we are prepared to trust him in this respect, we are offering him the power to choose those items in the Employment Rights Act 1996 that he thinks should no longer apply to very small firms: those employing 10 people or fewer. We are leaving it to his judgment. He will be in a good position to consult and to find out from business which parts of the legislation are most damaging and which could be removed without doing overwhelming damage—something that he and I would not want. We are being true to our word. We are happy to look at past as well as future legislation.
The main burden of the Opposition's charge is simple. There are already too many regulations. The Government have introduced some big and expensive ones already which business is having to digest, the minimum wage and the working time directive being two of the most obvious and expensive. We say to the Government, "Please do not put on top of that all the additional requirements of the Bill. Please exempt small firms. Please do something for very small firms."
If the Secretary of State does nothing for those categories, it will reveal that he is not interested in deregulation or British business, that he does not understand the catastrophe in modern British industry and that he will do absolutely nothing to stop those job losses and factory closures.

Mr. Bercow: I support new clauses 1 and 2, which offer a lifeline to the small businesses of this country. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had to say in support of the clauses demonstrated beyond doubt that, in the context of this Bill—as in other aspects of Government legislation and public debate—the official Opposition are on the side of small business and the Government are working against it.
Six reasons occur to me why the new clauses should be accepted. The first is the background to them. The circumstances in which we find ourselves are serious indeed for the small business sector of our economy. In 1998, 38,000 small businesses in this country closed. That represented a 6 per cent. increase on the figure for 1997. I hope that the House will be interested to know, and disturbed to learn, that in the first quarter of this year, no fewer than 11,000 small companies have ceased to trade.

There are a variety of reasons for closures and cessation of trade, but two reasons are paramount. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) chunters on any further, for all the world as if his main ambition this afternoon were to resemble the village idiot, let me favour him with the facts—[Interruption.] I shall continue to be as polite as I ordinarily am. Let me favour the hon. Gentleman with the evidence of the Federation of Small Businesses. As he was a doughty contributor to the proceedings of the Standing Committee, I hope that he will be interested to know the verdict of that organisation, which is the authentic voice of small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom.
The federation says—not anecdotally, but on the basis of all the evidence of its members—that there are two main problems. One is cash flow; the other is the burden of regulation on enterprises. In the context of the first reason, to prove that I am being scrupulously fair, I say at the outset that although far too many of the companies that have ceased to trade have gone bust, several of them have not.
Some of those companies—especially micro-businesses, although larger businesses are also involved—have made the decision to cease to trade while still relatively profitable, because they think that the odds are stacked against them, and that the Government seek to thwart rather than to assist them.
Some relatively successful business people, suffering the avalanche of additional regulation that the Government have produced in their first 22 months, have said to themselves—or rather to their employees—"I am sorry, but this is no longer a culture in which I feel comfortable to continue. I no longer want to get up and face the problems, surmount the challenges, market and sell products, make profits, keep you in work as my employees, and say to others, 'Come and work for me.'"
I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that if we believe that small businesses will be the engine of employment growth and commercial advance for the United Kingdom in the 21st century, the anxiety of those business people should be uppermost in his mind. Many of them are saying, "We don't want to face that burden any longer. We'll sell the company; we'll retire; we'll go and play an extra round of golf or buy an apartment in Marbella—but we don't want to operate small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom when Ministers don't seem to want us to do so."

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making an important point. It is in the micro and small business sector, among the family businesses, that personal sentiment is most prevalent. Our constituents who have been in that sector, and who have come to tell us that the game is not worth the candle, are absolutely right. They are sick to death of the hassle, and they do not see why they and their families should be subjected to health risks and protracted aggravation for so little benefit.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend, as usual, is right. I can testify to the truth of what he says not only on the basis of the comments and evidence of the Federation of Small Businesses, but from personal experience in my constituency. The small business sector is well developed in my constituency, in Milton Keynes and in the rest of north Buckinghamshire.
Time and again, people say to me, "We don't think Ministers are on our side. They utter soothing words, but they do not will the means to help us." What my hon. Friend said reflects what people in business at the grass roots are really saying.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am worried that we have already persuaded Ministers on this point and that my hon. Friend may therefore be over-egging the pudding. Does he not remember the excellent speech made by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—an unpaid Under-Secretary—who said, when he was asked by the Liberal Democrats for further regulations on discrimination against people on age grounds, that they would not be appropriate? That statement came during the last part of the Standing Committee's deliberations. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have at long last realised the damaging effect of all their regulations and may accept the new clause?

Mr. Bercow: I should like to think so, and hope springs eternal, but although I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's truly elephantine memory, I cannot in all candour pay similar tribute to his judgment or his generosity of spirit. I should be delighted to be disabused of my suspicion, but I fear that Ministers will not be willing to accept our new clause. If I am wrong, I shall happily donate £100 to my hon. Friend's favourite charity, but I do not think that I am likely to be so impoverished.
The second reason why new clauses 1 and 2 should be accepted lies in the pronouncements of senior Labour Members before and since the election. Before the election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:
We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down.
That statement was supposed to betoken a light-touch regulatory approach which has not been reflected in practice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out, the Government have imposed 2,400 additional regulations on business during their first 22 months in office. They have discarded only 20 regulations, which makes a net increase of 2,380.
If the Government want to honour their pre-election commitment, they should be prepared to accept the new clause as it would remove burdens otherwise imposed on small companies. I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has wafted out of the Chamber. I thought that he might be good enough to stay for the exchanges on new clause 1, because, as he does on other matters, the right hon. Gentleman has form on this subject. Under the protection of parliamentary privilege, I can even go so far as to say without fear of a writ for defamation that the right hon. Gentleman has previous convictions on the subject of regulation.
If the right hon. Gentleman were here, I am sure that he would not mind my reminding him that when he was Secretary of State, he said that:
we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]

Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend may wish to know, as a point of information,

that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is sitting in the No Lobby, where he is, perhaps, preparing to vote no on Third Reading for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Comments should relate entirely to what is taking place in the Chamber.

Mr. Bercow: I shall confine myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hope that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool will prove to be a sinner who repenteth, and that he will join us in the Division Lobby. He need be in no fear of being traduced or attacked if he does so. If it would be helpful for him, I shall, on this one occasion, make the very dangerous commitment to hold his hand as we walk through the Lobby in support of new clause 1, at the risk of considerable damage to my own reputation. I should be happy to do that for the benefit of having the right hon. Gentleman on side.
It is entirely characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), as a member of the Opposition Whips Office, that he should be the source of such invaluable information. The information of the Whips is always the most up-to-date of all.
The commitment made by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool on 25 November has not been followed. What I find most extraordinary about the Government is the wholly laid-back way in which they make commitments, do not honour them and then think that there is something curious about our pointing out the contradictions between rhetoric and reality. In days gone by, there was at least some assumption that people would follow their commitments with action, but that does not happen under this Administration.

Mr. Graham Brady: It is not only Conservative Members who have noted the Government's practice. The director-general of the Engineering Employers Federation said in February that the Government appeared to be doing one thing and saying another on the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. He is right and he would have been right also to allude to the evidence of the president of the Confederation of British Industry. Exactly 22 days before the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, the former Secretary of State, made his declaratory statement about not introducing burdensome regulation, the president of the CBI, Sir Clive Thompson, said that there was a creeping paralysis of regulation on British industry and commerce, and that unless the Government took action to arrest and reverse that trend, regulation would
be the only growth marker in the British economy in 1999.
I challenged the Secretary of State on that point following his statement on enterprise and competition on the day after the Budget. With respect, his response on that occasion—for a rising star of the Blairite faction—was limp in the extreme. He told me that his statement was not about the Budget and, therefore, he did not propose directly to respond to my challenge. If the Government want to reverse the tide of regulation and the


creeping paralysis from which business is suffering, they should accept the new clauses and free small and medium-sized enterprises from their impact.
The third reason why the Government should accept new clauses 1 and 2 was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and reflects the opinion of the business organisations. I understand that Governments have to take account of a variety of representations about the content of Bills. Some will be for a proposal and others against. The task of Government is to exercise judgment. They have to make the decisions, defend them in Parliament and seek approval for them, and I do not cavil at that. If business opinion were mixed on the subject, the Government could opt for their own preferences in the Bill. However, business opinion on family friendly policies is not mixed. The business organisations are against the thrust of the Government's policies and are supportive of the thrust of the proposed improvements to the Bill contained in new clauses 1 and 2.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred to the opinions of some of the business organisations. For example, the Institute of Directors has said that the Government's proposals would sap the competitiveness of United Kingdom firms. Ministers have not offered a response to that. They have not justified their position or shown why the Institute of Directors, one of the foremost business organisations in this country, is wrong. If the Government have an answer, we would be fascinated to hear it. They have not offered an answer to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has predicted that the proposals, if not withdrawn or amended,
will slow or stop growth in the small business sector.
The Government have not provided an answer to the observation by the Federation of Small Businesses that, as a result of these proposals, it will become too costly and too risky to employ staff. The Government have offered no rebuttal of the view of the Forum of Private Business, which is that the proposals could be "disastrous" for small firms. What answer has the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to the London chamber of commerce and industry, which fears the impact of the proposals and has said that they will be more damaging and burdensome to small firms than to their larger counterparts, and that action is needed now to help those small firms? We do not get answers from Ministers. They merely blithely assure us that the injurious effects that we predict will result from the legislation will not occur. That is not good enough, and that is why it is necessary to have the new clauses.
The fourth reason why the new clauses are necessary is that the Government are guilty of gold-plating the parental leave directive, which will be burdensome to British firms. I say without apology that Ministers were naive in the extreme to sign up to the European social chapter, which has obliged them to accept in toto the content of the parental leave directive, because the chapter is subject to qualified majority voting. A Conservative Government would not have signed up to the social chapter in this Parliament any more than we did in the last. We would not have been subject to the directive's damaging effects. It was the Government's choice to sign up to the chapter and the directive that flowed from it.
It is unfortunate that instead of interpreting the directive in its least damaging form for British micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have overzealously interpreted it, especially in relation to time off for domestic incidents.

Mr. Fabricant: I would not like to accuse my hon. Friend of plagiarism, but the House should know that it was not he who said that the directive was being gold-plated, but the CBI.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I, too, have had the benefit of the excellent, copious CBI brief, which speaks for itself. It is particularly lamentable that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry sits on the Front Bench without offering any answer. With no disrespect to the Secretary of State, I hope that the Minister will reply to the new clauses, or at least make his views known at some point in our exchanges. It is a matter of great importance because he is responsible for small firms. We need to know why he rejects the view of the authentic representatives of British business that small companies will be damaged by the proposals.
Gold-plating is unhelpful and unnecessary. It probably results from Ministers' lack of control of their officials. A good Minister guides officials. One has to assume from Ministers' rhetoric since 1 May 1997 that they do not want to gold-plate. If they do not want to, they should keep control of the process. If they wish to gold-plate, and I have underestimated their zeal in these matters, the logical corollary is that they have no right to claim to be small business-friendly. They cannot have it both ways. Whichever way they have it, they are the losers.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is perhaps a little unfair to officials. The Government do not understand what they signed up to with the European social chapter. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), having signed it on behalf of the British Government, said that he would not accept any regulations that he did not like the look of. He clearly did not understand what he was talking about.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool is a man of the broad brush. Far be it from me to accuse him of excessive preoccupation with detail or to suggest that beads of sweat appeared on his brow late at night as he ploughed through his red boxes, attending in the greatest detail to every feature of the legislation that he would subsequently have to defend in the House. He is a man of the general principle—the grand, high-falutin' declaration. Others have to pick up the debris from the ill-informed, misguided judgments that he habitually made as a Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who accused me of being a little ungenerous—perhaps I was—to officials, should not understate her case.
Not only the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was naive and ill-informed on these matters. The Prime Minister himself is and has long been singularly under-briefed on the contents of the proposals and treaties to which he has given his signature. It is precisely because the Prime Minister frequently imagined that he did not


have to sign up to or accept things that he did have to accept that it has been necessary for the Conservative Opposition to table the new clauses. The Prime Minister sometimes fondly imagines that if he goes to a summit or conference and says that he is against something, it will not happen in this country. That simply is not the case.
We all know that there is an agenda in the European Union. The Foreign Secretary certainly knows it. It is called the European social model. EU countries want to impose it on us and export to Britain the high costs, slothful growth and increasing unemployment that they have long suffered. We are in favour of lower costs, better growth and higher employment, not unemployment. That is why we are against the Government's proposals and in favour of the sensible new clauses tabled by the Opposition.

Mr. Redwood: While my hon. Friend is speculating on Secretaries of State of the broad brush and what they may have read in their red boxes, will he answer this question? Does he think that in recent days, when the Secretary of State received a copy of the oral statement that the Minister for the Cabinet Office was to give on modernising government, he read it, saw that it was a strong statement of the need to remove unnecessary regulation and fired off a letter to the Minister saying that the statement would embarrass him greatly today as he was unable to accept sensible deregulation proposals in new clauses tabled to the Bill? Or does my hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State just did not bother to read it?

Mr. Bercow: I do not know what accounts for this extraordinary state of affairs, but my right hon. Friend, as usual, makes a highly pertinent point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office made a statement only a couple of hours ago on the modernisation of government and said, in response to questions, that regulations should be proportionate. That was the word that he used. It is a good word, and one that I commend to the House—proportionate—

Mr. Redwood: And necessary.

Mr. Bercow: And necessary, as my right hon. Friend helpfully points out from a sedentary position. I commend it to the House. The Secretary of State was no doubt genning up on his remarks for the afternoon at that point so whether he had the benefit of hearing from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I know not, but he should have seen in exchanges of letters between Cabinet colleagues what the Minister proposed to say. In the light of that, it is extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not put his hands up this afternoon and said to my right hon. Friend, "You are absolutely right. We agree to the new clauses. We can proceed to make further progress on the Report stage of the Bill."

Mr. Boswell: Is not one of the difficulties that the Secretary of State faces the fact that some of his other clients or friends take a different view. For example, the TUC explicitly acknowledges:
The arrival of the full Social Chapter procedure is both timely and crucial for the creation of a European system of industrial relations.
It goes on at length in exactly the same vein.

Mr. Bercow: I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says because we have always known that the

cloth-capped colonels of the TUC are enthusiasts for greater regulation. As they could not get it through the front door because of the admirable stewardship of this country's affairs by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, they decided some time ago that if they could usher it in through the back Delors, they would happily do so. They have made strenuous efforts to see that they are on the winning side as often as possible. Now that they have a Government in office who are sympathetic to their general viewpoint, they are determined to extract the maximum in return for the enormous donations that they made to that party when it was in opposition for 18 years. What my hon. Friend says is highly relevant to our proceedings.
I referred a moment ago to the statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the proportionality of regulations. That is relevant to what I have to say about my fifth reason why the new clauses should be accepted by the House this afternoon. My fifth reason is the regulations that flow from the Bill.
It is important that the public outside this place should be aware that the Bill is substantially a skeleton Bill. The devil is in the detail, and it is a lamentable abdication of responsibility on the part of the Government that there will be no opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the detail of the regulations that will implement the Government's intentions as set out in the Bill. I am extremely anxious about the burden that the regulations will impose and that is a further reason why the new clauses should be accepted.
The regulations will be burdensome in terms of time. Companies will have to devote much time to familiarising themselves —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been extremely generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make certain general points in relation to the new clause, but I have reached the limit of my patience. The hon. Gentleman is now moving away from the kernel of this particular group of new clauses; the new clauses relate to exemptions for small businesses rather than to general matters in the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall immediately comply with your helpful guidance. That is why I say that we should support the new clauses. If they are passed, they will give small businesses an exemption from the regulations that will accompany the Bill. That seems to be at the heart of the debate.
In Committee, we explored the whole subject and discussed the possibility of exemptions for small firms. One of the reasons we did so was that, as Ministers are aware, the regulations flowing from the working time directive, which will have an impact on small and medium-sized enterprises in Britain, currently stretch to 72 pages of A4 paper. If people outside this place are surprised to learn that, they will be even more surprised to learn that the regulations that flow from the requirement to impose a national minimum wage—a requirement that is as applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises as it is to others—stretch to no fewer than 112 pages of A4 paper. Part of the rationale behind the introduction of the new clauses is that the Opposition are the friends of small and medium-sized enterprises and do not think that they should have to face


that burden. Quite apart from the work that those in such enterprises do to keep their companies afloat, to make them profitable, to sell products, to keep and, if possible, increase their staff, why should they have to devote a great deal of time to studying the regulations to see that their companies conform to them? That is a key weakness of the Bill as it stands and a good reason why the new clauses are required to improve it.
The cost of compliance—and the cost of discovering whether one is complying—will be a further burden on micro, small and medium-sized companies. Although business organisations have been almost uniformly critical of those aspects of the Bill, little attention has been paid to the comments of our old friends the lawyers. I am not a lawyer—I say that with pride—but I am aware that many make their living from the practice of the legal profession. A leading member of Bevan Ashford said recently that the passage of the Bill would result in a great deal more work for him unless certain provisions were removed or amended.
The reason why that greater work will result is that companies will not know whether or not they are in conformity with the regulations, they will naturally consult and pay lawyers, time will be taken, and references to the courts will be required—none of which activity is remotely relevant to the overriding task of a small business, which is to stay afloat, make a profit and keep its staff. It is precisely because of that damage that we need to act.
The sixth and final reason why we should embrace the new clauses with enthusiasm is that, if we do so, we emulate the spirit and the practice of the United States of America. In an important recent speech, the Secretary of State said that the creation of wealth was now more important than its redistribution. I welcomed that statement and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having made it, but I want it to be reflected in practice. If we are to adopt a policy under the Bill that is helpful to SMEs, we have to free them from the burden I have described. The reason why I refer to it in the context of the new clauses is that, when my right hon. and hon. Friends discussed this matter before coming to the House today, we became conscious of a pattern of which the Secretary of State is one part, and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool and the Prime Minister are two other important parts.
I see that the former Secretary of State has been jolted from his private conversation with the deputy Chief Whip. The right hon. Gentleman will know that as Secretary of State, when talking about business growth, he made frequent references to the importance of learning from the United States—indeed, in the course of one speech, he referred several times to visits he had paid to the United States. He will recall that I raised the matter with him, because I thought it important, in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November last year. I politely challenged him about what appeared to me to be the conflict between the commitment to American practice and the reality of Government policies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spinning wide of the scope of this group of new clauses and amendments. I suggest that he gets back to the main subject very quickly.

Mr. Bercow: I shall come back to it immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not thought that I had strayed, but I accept your judgment in these matters.
We need light-touch regulation and, in some cases, businesses to be free of regulation altogether, in line with the American model. The direct relevance of that, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will now be blindingly obvious to every right hon. and hon. Member present. The relevance of my invocation of the example of the United States is that there, a directly comparable provision on parental leave is applied very differently from the way it is to be applied in this country. That is the relevance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will accept that it is within the scope of the new clauses.
In the United States, as I have reminded the Minister for Small Firms and the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), there is legislation on family and medical leave—the Family and Medical Leave Act 1993. Moreover, that legislation does indeed provide for 12 weeks unpaid leave for parents and guardians in certain circumstances. However, it does not apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees, which is one good reason why we adopted the figure of 50 as the basis of our new clauses. I ask a simple question of the Secretary of State: why talk about American practice unless he is prepared to emulate it? It is not good enough for the Minister for Small Firms to tell me in his letter of 25 March that, in incorporating American ideas in the British context, one has to take account of British traditions and institutions, as an excuse for not doing in this country that which works extremely well in that country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as ever, you have been a model of tolerance and I am grateful to you for that, as it has enabled me to give six reasons—of the no doubt 666 reasons—why the new clauses should be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Wilkinson: The previous speech was a tour de force and I shall not attempt to emulate it. Nor could I emulate the authority with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke. Suffice it to say, if I can be forgiven for being subjective, that my impressions of the merits of the new clauses stem less from long hours in Standing Committee—I applaud my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for their persistence in trying to amend the Bill in Committee, and regret that we have had to return to these issues on Report—than from my experience of running a small company of my own for 12 years.
I cannot believe that, in the current climate, it will be easy to induce people to enter the small business sector, because everything is stacked against them. The background is grim. Given that we have an overvalued currency, following the plunge of the euro, and given the imposts and directives under which a small business has to labour, those who run such businesses face an exceptionally difficult task. However, the Government should show willing and at least recognise that it is time to match their rhetoric with action. The new clauses contain proposals that are exactly in line with best practice, to use the current jargon, in the United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) clearly explained. I cannot see any reason other than bigotry and dogma why the Government should not wholeheartedly embrace the new clauses. I cannot see what they would lose by so doing.
Speaking as a London Member, I am grieved that the Bill will have an especially hard impact on family businesses, which in my constituency in the north-west of


the capital are often run by members of the ethnic community. We hear time and again from the Government protestations that they are on the side of the ethnic community and that their legislation is drafted to demonstrate that commitment. However, members of the ethnic community who start up small businesses will be extremely vulnerable to the complications of the plethora of burdens that are inherent in the Bill. Those who run a family business do not need explicit provisions on parental leave, because they know what is appropriate in their family's circumstances and in the interests of the business. I find the Government's prescriptive, dogmatic attitude objectionable.
Likewise, there is a huge divergence between the Government's protestations and rhetoric and their actions in respect of women, who will suffer especially from the Bill as it stands. Part-time workers, a large proportion of whom are women, are less likely to be taken on by small businesses because of the provisions of the Bill. This is exceptionally sad.
It is the experience of every economy that, time and again, small businesses prove to be the engine for growth. If they are to be fundamentally inhibited, the chances of our getting out of the proto-recession into which we have slumped under the current Administration will be fatally compromised. The process of emerging from the proto-recession will be protracted, more difficult and more painful. Many people would lose their jobs unnecessarily.
I do not understand why the Government refuse to listen to the wise counsel of my right hon. Friend and those who support the new clause. The Government should accept it wholeheartedly and demonstrate thereby that they are genuinely on the side of business. They should not use small business simply as a slogan in an attempt to beguile the electorate into acquiescing to their policies. My constituents in the small business sector tell me that the Government's rhetoric is all very well, but the prescriptive nature of their regulations is a disincentive. It is about time that that disincentive was removed.

6 pm

Mr. Christopher Gill: My family has run a business in Wolverhampton for five generations, but I am somewhat diffident about taking part in this debate when I see so many experts aligned on the other side of the Chamber. However, the Government and I have different perspectives. I have run a business and converted a small enterprise into a bigger one, facing many trials and tribulations in the process. My son continues that business—he is the sixth generation family member to do so—and we have a joke in our family that I am here running the country while he is at home running the business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must admit that my son is having much more success than I—but not because of this Government. The Labour Government have continued to put obstacles in his way, as they are doing tonight.
There is a huge gulf between those who come from the public sector and big business and those who come from a small business background. Small business operators recognise that employment relations problems exist and that the Government wish to tackle them. However, as my

right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been at pains to point out tonight, many of those problems either do not affect small business or cannot be solved by legislative means. Legislation is singularly inappropriate in many cases, given that so many small businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water because of the existing legislative burden.
In my earlier days, I ran my own business when there were industrial training boards. I had served in the Royal Navy—the finest training organisation in the world—and, when I returned from sea, I was intent upon training my employees. The industrial training boards killed my enthusiasm and destroyed my involvement in training by imposing a huge bureaucracy upon that vital work. As a consequence, I had to employ a training officer and training personnel to assume those duties. The situation led eventually to an industrial tribunal hearing, which I won. I could tell you much about that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must not digress.
The consequence of the Bill will be a downsizing of private businesses. Private businesses have no incentive to employ a lot of labour. The burden of employment laws—which are being added to tonight—leads many entrepreneurs to seek constantly to diversify into areas where they do not have to employ so many workers. The unemployment that results from such practices affects almost exclusively the least qualified section of society: those employees with fewer skills and qualifications.
For the benefit of the Secretary of State, I point out that the only practical difference between a successful business and an unsuccessful business is the people we employ. Many of us in the marketplace buy the same raw materials to which we do the same things and then sell them to the same customers, often at the same price. The difference between success and failure is our people. I do not need the Secretary of State or a Labour Government to tell me about the importance of personnel: any small business man knows that his success depends upon his employees. For that reason, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make an impassioned plea that businesses employing fewer than 51 people be excluded from the legislation.
The reality of running a small business—this may be entirely alien to the Secretary of State's life experience—is that the owner is the production manager, the sales manager, the administrator and the personnel manager. He must also perform a raft of other functions. The more legislation of this sort that we impose upon the owner, the more difficult it is for him to attend to his most important function: creating a product to sell on the market at a profit, thereby generating wealth for the nation and employment in our constituencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was absolutely correct to refer to the difference between this Government's rhetoric and the reality. That difference was summed up for me on Budget day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that he was keen to encourage small business and to do his best to keep overheads down. However, he went on to say that he was reducing employers national insurance by 0.5 per cent. I do not know how the Government do their arithmetic,


but employers national insurance presently stands at 10 per cent. and will be 11.7 per cent. as a result of the Budget. That does not help small businesses.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that, shortly after the Chancellor's Budget speech, the Secretary of State said, in what should have been a joke but apparently was not:
I am reviewing arrangements for business rescues"?—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 367.]
Was that not a good idea, given the likely exponential increase in the number of candidates requiring rescue as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Gill: I understand my hon. Friend's very good point. Most business people do not want help from the Government, but neither do they want hindrance of the sort represented by the legislation before the House today.
The Secretary of State may say, with some justification, that he receives relatively few complaints from the small business sector. I understand that, and I shall explain why that is so. The small business man is employed every waking hour trying to keep his business afloat and successful. They do not want to waste time appealing to politicians—particularly those from the Government party—because they know that their appeals will fall on deaf ears.
I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate, so I shall conclude by informing the Secretary of State that I and my family have survived in business not because of Government, but in spite of them.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) think that his comments have fallen on deaf ears? Although the Secretary of State and his Ministers are quite charming, they have had no experience in business. A few years spent working as a polytechnic lecturer or working for a large public corporation does not equate with building a business for oneself.
When I rose on Second Reading, I spoke about Abraham Lincoln, and there was talk earlier about the American message for us, which is often seized on by the Labour party in its bid not only to gain power, but to hold on to power. Abraham Lincoln said, "You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor." That applies not only to large corporations, but to small businesses, which the Bill will strangle at birth. The legislation owes much to the tenet that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Where does most of the Labour party's money come from? It comes from the trade union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out that, in this quarter alone, 11,000 small businesses have gone bust. They needed to be rescued from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I anticipate that, when he winds up the debate, he will say, "Ah, but many new small businesses have been formed." Let me pre-empt him. Information from Dun and Bradstreet reveals that the net losses in that quarter are the greatest for the first quarter of the year since the depths of the world recession—I emphasise the word "world"—of six or seven years ago. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that small businesses are being formed to compensate for the 11,000 that have gone bust—that is not so.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Dun and Bradstreet report reveals that 11,000 businesses

have gone bust in the first quarter and that the last time the figure was considerably higher was back in 1992, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, was Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. The fact that records were far worse then than they are now owes much to his legacy.

Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State points out that the figures were worse in 1992, but I repeat that we were in the middle of a world recession, and that was at the time of the exchange rate mechanism. Does the Secretary of State not take Cabinet responsibility for his Prime Minister, who, far from gearing up for the ERM, which at least allowed us some latitude, wants to gear up for a common currency, which will make pressures on small businesses far worse?
I shall return to the new clause. The CBI, as hon. Members have already pointed out, says that the directives on parental leave that will apply to small businesses are gold-plating the EU directive. I shall let the House into a little secret. I recall that, soon after I entered the House in 1992, early in the Parliament, the Secretary of State's predecessor and then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), faced a similar situation with an EU directive that was not desirable for small businesses. He was advised by his officials that he had no choice in the matter—the directive had to be introduced. A few months later, the draft legislation appeared, and, like this Bill, it was gold-plated.
I therefore give the Secretary of State advice about gold-plating, which he could take from the former President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend asked his civil servants, "Why is the document so thick? Why have we gold-plated the legislation?" They answered, "If we did not gold-plate it, it would be unenforceable. There would be too many loopholes." As I understand it, my right hon. Friend said, "Great! We do not want the legislation. Let us put it through Parliament without gold-plating it." It was passed and it was unenforceable.
Far be it from me to suggest that Parliament should occasionally pass laws that are unenforceable and contain loopholes; but, when they are forced on our nation by unreasonable, ill-thought-out diktats from Brussels which will result in not only small, but large businesses going under, let us pass such legislation for the sake of businesses at home. That is exactly what France, Italy and Spain do. They have to do that because they want to keep their businesses solvent.
6.15 pm
Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who has now left the Chamber, asked a perfectly reasonable question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State. He asked, "Why is the threshold in the new clause set at 50? Why not 20 or 100?" One of the reasons is that many of the states in the US use the threshold of 50.
The Secretary of State's view is that 20 is a reasonable figure, and that is backed up by all those who are concerned with the welfare of small businesses. However, let me tell the Secretary of State, if he does not already know, that a survey conducted by the members of the


Institute of Directors said that 28 per cent. of respondents believed that firms employing up to 50 people should be exempted and only 13 per cent. were happy with the Government's definition of a small firm.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are inconsistent in their approach? Is he aware that, although the Government have opted, in this context, for the definition of a small firm as one that employs no more than 20 employees, Ministers have chosen the threshold of 50 employees for the purposes of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998? Why can they not make up their minds?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. I could talk about the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I shall not say much about that because I know that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I talk about it at length.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Or, indeed, almost at all.

Mr. Boswell: While my hon. Friend is getting his angle straight, I remind him that in the United States, to which he has referred, the minimum wage is comparatively acceptable precisely because it is set at a reasonable rate and not applied to small businesses.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend anticipated my next point, and I am delighted that you did not rule him out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Institute of Directors "Fairness at Work" research paper of September 1998 quoted a company that said:
We employ less than 20 people at present and with the Government's current attitude we're likely to stay that way".
That echoes the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who asked what incentive there was for a small business to expand. The Bill is absolutely symptomatic of the Government: they are full of bright ideas that are never thought through. They do not empathise with business, because their paymasters are the trade unions and because they do not come from a business background.
As I said on Second Reading, one can read about and study business as much as one likes, but, if one has not immersed oneself in it, one cannot understand the pressures that small businesses are under.
I shall quote a business man—I anticipate that I will be receiving a brown envelope from Hansard—whose name I shall try to pronounce correctly. Mr. Darsghan Thiara, a clothes factory owner from Birmingham who has a staff of 85, was reported in the Financial Times in January as saying: "Overall it"—this legislation—
puts a big pressure on employment; we are seriously considering cutting the number of people we employ.
We must ask ourselves what the company will do. Will it cut staff to 20 or 19 to try to avoid the provisions of this legislation?
Ministers, who are used to teams of civil servants, believe that understanding and implementing legislation are easy. They think that civil servants have all the time in the world. I know—this is certainly the experience in

the Treasury—that civil servants work all the hours that God gives them. Ministers arrogantly take such an attitude, but small firms simply do not have such teams of people. As has been pointed out, the managing director is often the finance director, and often also the personnel director—or the director of human resources, as they now call it. The Government Front-Bench team will like that term because they like modern jargon and slogans.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Like joined-up thinking.

Mr. Fabricant: We have joined-up running of companies simply because one poor guy has to do it all. On top of that, such people will have to try to implement the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend not being too generous about the Government Front-Bench team? Ministers completely ignore the regulations that they introduce. They do not seem to worry about the working time directive. We even have a Minister—the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—who is working for nothing, despite the minimum wage regulations which are coming into force on 1 April.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister is to be complimented on working for nothing. Under minimum wage legislation, one can be paid nothing, such as when one works for a charity. Of course, when people are paid under £3.60, it does not exactly help other charities—but I will not go into that, because it would be out of order.
The legislation will put people in a very difficult position. The whole situation was summed up by Mel Lambert, who is head of human resources at IVEC/Fiat, when he said—I do not have the memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who can quote from a marvellous mind without referring to paperwork, so I shall use my notes for accuracy:
It puts these (small) companies in a very difficult position. They are minnows compared to union professionals.
In the short term, trade unions will fight for the so-called rights of their employees; in many ways, that is laudable, but it will be at the expense of their long-term security and long-term employment. The House should mark my words: these provisions will be a long way from fostering the growth of small business. Let us remember that it is the small business that becomes the large business. ICI did not suddenly appear out of the blue. It was originally a small company which was set up in the 19th century. Even BT was once a very small corporation.

Mr. Bruce: And Sainsbury.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend reminds me that Sainsbury plc started as a small corner shop.

Mr. Stephen Day: And Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Fabricant: Indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough of historical tales.

Mr. Fabricant: All large businesses start as small businesses. If small businesses are strangled at birth, there


will not be large businesses. Without large businesses, unemployment will grow. That is, of course, what we have been experiencing over the past two years.
This Government are fond of using clichés; I shall use one that is accurate. They inherited a golden economic legacy, they have started to ruin it, and it will be destroyed still further by this thoughtless, pernicious, vindictive legislation.

Miss Kirkbride: I rise to continue the plea from the Opposition Benches for the Government finally to listen to our concerns and adopt our amendments, so that some of the most onerous restrictions on business will not be placed on those that employ 50 or fewer employees. We on these Benches feel so passionately because we cannot understand why the Government, having learned many lessons from the previous Conservative Government—we should bear in mind some of the programmes that they have instituted and some of the messages that they gave the electorate during the general election campaign—cannot learn one of the most serious ones from our period in government and our record on employment.
When the Labour party was elected in May 1997, it inherited rapidly falling unemployment. In 1995, it had a programme to put 250,000 young people back to work. By the time it came to office, half those young people were already in work. We must ask ourselves why that happened. Unlike countries on the continent, we in the United Kingdom have a relatively unregulated economy. Obviously, we have provisions on health and safety at work and the right conditions for people at work, but we do not have the onerous regulation that has resulted in unemployment of about 12 per cent. in comparable countries on the continent. Over here in the UK, unemployment is 6 per cent. Indeed, due to our inheritance, there has been some further success in reducing unemployment and increasing employment.
Some of us on the Opposition Benches, who, sadly, have been considering these regulations in great detail over the past few months, see the Government's complete failure to understand why they inherited such a fantastically performing economy. We fear that we are seeing the trade unions' payback after years of a Labour Opposition.

Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend talks about the Government failing to learn such an important lesson. Perhaps our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was right in saying that such a lesson cannot be learned academically, but must be learned through experience and gathered wisdom. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) agree that, as not a member of the Cabinet has ever bought or sold anything for a living in business, they are very unlikely to have that necessary experience and wisdom?

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is entirely accurate. One would have thought that the Government might be capable of learning from our experience in power and from our record on employment when we started getting things right—sadly, that is not so.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen the long-term unemployment and youth unemployment statistics? After

six months of the new deal, youth unemployment rose by 9,000—for the first time for almost four years. After nine months of the new deal, it went up by another 22,000. That surely demonstrates that the Government have not a clue when it comes to creating jobs.

Miss Kirkbride: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been very assiduous in studying the real statistics on the new deal and youth unemployment. Despite Government statistics, which are deliberately intended to confuse the picture, the record on youth unemployment is not anything like the Government pretend it to be in public pronouncements.
In considering the new clause, and bearing in mind all the debates in Committee on the new regulations, I think of all the people in my constituency whom I meet in the Conservative club, on the street or in my surgery, or who write to me. They, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), are the unsung heroes of our community. They make our communities tick. They provide employment for the people we represent and the wealth that the Government redistribute. They are the people who make this country work. When I think of them and what is about to be imposed on them, I feel desperately sad and desperately frustrated that we clearly are unable to make the Government understand what they are doing.
6.30 pm
I shall provide some elucidation. A couple of weeks ago, I spoke at a business breakfast club, and I was pleased at the attendance for a speech by a Conservative Member of Parliament. Indeed, the number of people turning up to listen to a speech by a politician at 8.30 am was much greater than normal. I wonder whether that was because the message about how unfriendly the Government are to business is finally getting through. I told the people there many things that the Government propose to do and gave them a copy of the 76-page working time directive, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred. I suggested that they might want to go home and read it, because they would certainly have to know of its provisions.
Sadly, I was not able to give the people present a copy of the 112-page minimum wage regulations. They had not been published, despite the fact that the minimum wage is being introduced on Thursday, and were not even available two weeks ago for my constituents to read so that they might be aware of the conditions.
Then I began to tell my constituents what else was coming down the track, which was unfair: it was Friday morning and they were looking forward to the weekend, but I was busy telling them that, if all that was not enough, they had to consider other measures, such as three months paternity leave for staff: a small business may have secured a big contract, but the production manager may want his three months paternity leave. One can think of legioned examples where dislocation and huge upset would be caused for small businesses, denting their production and wealth-creating capacity.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing an extremely powerful argument. Given that the Secretary of State did not dispute in the debate on Second Reading on


9 February that America's job creation record is superior to that of the European Union, can she fathom why he wants to incorporate the EU method for family friendly policies, rather than that of America?

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend again makes an excellent point that goes to the heart of our concerns about the Bill. We hear one thing from the Government, but we get another. We hear that they are against regulation, but the regulations that they are introducing are so fantastically complicated and expensive that they are sufficient to make our eyes water. We hear that they think that America has some really good ideas about how to do things, but they suggest that the American model is not the one that they are introducing to the United Kingdom.
Labour Members often said that America has a minimum wage, but we were never told that it does not apply to small firms or that it was considerably less than the minimum wage that the Government intend to set in the United Kingdom. Although some of the provisions that the Government intend to introduce through the Bill are in force in America, others achieve precisely what we hope to achieve through the new clause: they exempt from regulations small firms employing fewer than 50 people.
The impact is obvious for us all to see. Over the past 20 years, there has been no net creation of private sector jobs in the EU. Some companies have gone to the wall and others have been created, but the private sector has not created any extra jobs. America's record on net job creation runs into millions. If we are to have a successful and prosperous future—not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the whole EU—we have to get real. We must understand that the world is changing and that many other countries seek a standard of living similar to ours. We are being caught up, rapidly.
The Secretary of State will be only too well aware of the situation that we face in respect of Rover. Serious threats are being made by BMW about taking to Hungary the car-making capacity that we all want to go to Longbridge. Why is BMW making those threats? Because Hungary does not have anything like the number of employment regulations that we have, and it certainly does not have the restrictions and regulations that the Government will introduce through the Bill.
I ask the Secretary of State to hear the pleas of Conservative Members, which are earnest and honest. This is not the right way forward. The Government will impoverish our constituents by introducing the Bill. We do not necessarily dispute the point that the Government are seeking to help our constituents, but they are misguided in seeking to help them in this way.

Mr. Bercow: Well-meaning fools.

Miss Kirkbride: Sadly, I cannot disagree.
What the Government are seeking to do will have such an impact and import. I hope that they will listen to Conservative Members. I hope that, if they must go ahead on this basis, firms with fewer than 50 employees will not be affected by these provisions.

Mr. Brady: It is a great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), as

it must have been a great pleasure for the many business people in her constituency to attend her business breakfast and see her smiling face at 8.30 am—until, of course, she embarked on telling them the most devastating news about what the Government are seeking to do to damage the businesses on which her constituents and, indeed, people throughout the country depend for their well-being.
I shall be brief, not only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is keen to speak, but because as many as four Labour Back Benchers of the dozen or so who were members of the Standing Committee have managed to come to the Chamber to see the Bill through. I am pleased that they are here, although a little disappointed—

Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend knows, I always seek to be fair to Government Back Benchers, so it is only right to point out that five Labour Back Benchers who were members of the Standing Committee are present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The presence of hon. Members has nothing to do with the new clause; we must come to a discussion of it.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish to pay tribute to one or two Labour Members who made worthwhile comments in Committee, and I hope that they will make further helpful and intelligent contributions to our debates tonight.
I am keen to contribute, albeit briefly, because new clauses 1 and 2 are central to the question of the Government's belief in enterprise and whether their protestations about that are to be taken seriously. I have witnessed the repeated onslaught of new regulatory burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the burden being placed on people who run businesses—particularly smaller businesses with no recourse to professional advice, no human resources manager and no means to afford the best advice from employment lawyers—is enormous. In turn, that has enormous implications for employment in the small business sector. I hope that Ministers will start to understand the damage that their proposals will do to that sector, which is critically important in the current economic climate.
Those burdens are relevant to the road haulage industry, which has many small businesses. The contrast between what Ministers say about that industry and what they are doing to cause problems for it is quite staggering. It is also instructive in the context of the Bill. In response to complaints that road fuel duty is driving people out of business, or forcing them to reflag their businesses on the continent, the Government say that other costs here are lower than those on the continent. The Bill, however, contains precisely the measures that will remove any current competitive advantage that those small businesses enjoy over their European competitors. That will therefore compound the difficulties that the Government are already causing for that industry.
I suspect that the apparent absurdity of the Government's position is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are dealing with here and its implications for businesses in what many hon.


Members may choose to call the real world. That was illustrated by the Under-Secretary, in response to an amendment which I tabled in Committee seeking to limit the practice of gold-plating, when he said:
I would like to give some examples of the benefits that businesses with a positive attitude to family-friendly work can gain from the regulations. They gain a competitive edge, as we have said many times during the progress of the Bill. They gain improved returns on investments, because by offering good working practices they can attract the right people".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 551.]
I shall not quote at length because the point is made.
Ministers labour under the delusion that, far from the Bill costing jobs and being a burden and additional cost on businesses, particularly small businesses, it will do the small business sector a favour, improving returns and reducing costs by increasing regulation. That is palpable nonsense, but Ministers appear to be wedded to it.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend also understand the further ludicrous nature of the Government's position in that almost all the bodies that represent small and medium businesses in Britain have repeatedly pointed out to the Government the ridiculous error of what they are doing and how damaging it will be to the competitiveness of the sector of our economy that has the greatest capacity to create jobs? How will that help the British economy?

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual magnificent style. The important point that has been made during the debate is that small businesses, business generally, business organisations and Conservative Members understand the damage that the Government will do by refusing to accept our commonsense new clauses and amendments. But Labour Members and Ministers refuse to accept what is simple logic and common sense.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall bring my remarks to a close, but I hope that Ministers will think again before causing irreparable damage to the small business sector.

Mr. Michael Jack: I am deeply surprised that the Government do not welcome the new clauses and the consequential amendments. The Secretary of State recently addressed the Federation of Small Businesses conference in Blackpool, where he was heckled, booed and hissed because small businesses felt that that was the only way tangibly to demonstrate their revulsion of yet more regulations.
I recently met representatives of the Lancashire branch of the Engineering Employers Federation, and they told me that their main worry at present was overburdensome regulations. They said, "We are relatively small-scale enterprises and we have enough problems as it is dealing with the strength of the pound. Please, no more regulation." They said that, to deal with the working time directive alone, the federation had had to issue a 200-page guidance document. They are struggling so much that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has agreed to see a delegation from the federation to try to sort out the mess.
The federation would, to use common parlance, freak out if it saw schedule 3, to which the new clause relates. That is what the Government will impose on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the new clause is not agreed to.
I always worry when Ministers smile at Opposition Members as though we had a screw loose. On this occasion, we do not. Many Conservative Members, such as myself, were involved in modest enterprises before we entered the House. We understand that if a key member of staff is sick, or absent for maternity purposes, someone else must do the job or be brought in. Ministers do not seem to understand the impact that schedule 3 will have on such businesses.
The Government are fond of talking about the rights of individuals, but it is no good individual employees being affected by these proposals if they are not working because their former company has said that enough is enough in terms of the burden of these regulations. It is at that level that the Government have failed to put forward coherent, well-argued points to support their reasons for placing these additional cost burdens on this sector of industry. If the Secretary of State wants to avoid being booed again next year in Blackpool, he should adopt our proposals.

Mr. Byers: I enjoyed my morning in Blackpool speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses. I was told by an official there that the reaction to my speech was one of the most positive ever given to a Minister. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, the very nature of small businesses means that they do not care too much for Governments of any political persuasion. Apparently, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) addressed the conference as President of the Board of Trade, the reaction was far more hostile than anything I had to suffer. The federation made me feel very much at home.
Government amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 simply mean that workers who ordinarily work in the United Kingdom will count towards the minimum of 21 workers required for the purposes of statutory recognition. At present, the Bill does not clarify that point and these three rather technical amendments seek to do precisely that. I hope that the House will agree to them.
With regard to new clauses 1 and 2, Conservative Members failed to reflect on issues to do with interest rates, inflation and sound public finances. Small, medium and large businesses want economic stability and an economic climate in which they can plan ahead with certainty.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: In a minute.
Those are the issues that concern business, but there was not one reference to them this evening.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress. We have had a long debate and I know that the House wishes to divide.
That is why it is important to create the right economic climate so that businesses can plan ahead with certainty. Particularly noticeable was the reference to the Dun and Bradstreet survey, which showed that there was some 11,000 business failures in the first quarter of this year.


I shall take that on board and reflect on it. However, it is worth noting that one quarter of the world is in recession and Japan, the world's second largest economy, is in the depths of a deep depression. That is bound to have consequences for the United Kingdom.
But 11,000 business failures in the first quarter of this year pales into insignificance compared with the 62,000 business failures in 1992 when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. That is the right hon. Gentleman's golden legacy.

Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, but surely, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Minister there was a world recession. If people lose their jobs now, it will not be because of a world recession but because of this Secretary of State's legislation.

Mr. Byers: The problem was that we were going through a Tory boom and bust. Interest rates were at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent. and we had lost more than 1 million manufacturing jobs. That was the right hon. Gentleman's legacy as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall not let him forget it. He has form: he has a record, and people need to be reminded of it.

Mr. Redwood: That is a tired old erroneous charge. Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem was caused by our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? The Labour party supported that policy. Will he now apologise, as the Conservative party has done, for the fact that that policy went wrong?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the fact that he was a Minister who signed up to the ERM. He could have stood by his principles and resigned office, but he failed to do so. We do not judge people by the apologies that they make five years too late: we judge them by their actions at the time. The right hon. Gentleman could have resigned from his ministerial position and stood by his principles. He failed to do so, and he put his personal position before a principled approach. In 1992, he did not resign: he held on to his ministerial position. That is his record, and he will be reminded of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying from the subject of small businesses.

Mr. Byers: Yes, we must come back to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall do so.
When the right hon. Gentleman moved new clause 1, which would exempt companies employing 50 or fewer people, he admitted that that was not his personal option—he would favour an exemption for firms employing 100 or fewer. I am bound to ask whose policy it is that we are debating. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy, although he personally favours exemption for companies employing 100 or fewer, or is it the policy of the Conservative party? We need to know whose policy it is. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman to allow him to clarify the position.

Mr. Redwood: I have said that the Opposition would welcome an exemption for companies employing fewer

than 50. We moved the new clause because we thought that we were more likely to get an exemption for those companies than we were to get an exemption for companies employing fewer than 100 people. If the Secretary of State were to offer an exemption for companies employing fewer than 100, I would be very grateful.

Mr. Byers: So the official spokesman for the Opposition favours one position—that is worth noting—but moves an amendment that takes another. The figure of 100 is relevant because such an exemption would cover well over half the working population. Those people would be denied the basic entitlements provided by the Bill.
What are these basic entitlements that are apparently so dangerous to the future of small business in the United Kingdom? One entitlement is time off for a parent whose child is sick. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that parents should not be able to have time off if they happen to work in an organisation that employs 50 or fewer? That is the implication of the new clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman. A mother with concerns about the welfare of her child would not be able to have emergency leave to look after that child.
We are providing the right for part-timers no longer to be discriminated against, but Opposition Members are seeking to take that right away from millions of employees. The provision of unpaid parental leave to carry out the responsibilities of bringing up a child would be denied if the Opposition succeeded with their new clause. Millions of people would be denied those basic entitlements. We shall resist the new clause, because it would discriminate against millions of people in the most gross and unfair way.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I shall not.
Opposition Members raised the genuine issue of the burden of regulation. The Government must address that issue, and we intend to do so. During questions last week, I said that the Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing every regulation to see whether it is worth while and, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office this afternoon, to ensure that it is proportionate and necessary. That is the Government's policy, and it applies across all Departments.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: No, I want to make this point, because it is important.
That is why, just 10 days ago, I met representatives of business to identify an agenda on which we can jointly make progress on regulation and the steps that need to be taken. What we have heard tonight from Conservative Members reminded me of the debates that were held when the House debated the Equal Pay Bill, which became the Equal Pay Act 1970. Conservative Members said that that


legislation would destroy jobs for women: that was their constant refrain. It has not done so, and women in the workplace have gone from strength to strength.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Byers: No, I shall not give way.
Conservative Members sought to talk down small business. They spoke about small businesses being in a desperate situation because of measures introduced by the Government. They spoke of business failures. This year, 400,000 new businesses will be established because of the framework that we have created in government. Barclays bank says that the small business population has risen by 58,000 in the past two years. More importantly, survival rates are now improving. More than 80 per cent. of new businesses now survive their first year of trading compared with 75 per cent. in 1994. That is because we are creating the right climate and the right framework for businesses to prosper.
There will be support for innovation, and we shall work to increase finance for small businesses. We introduced legislation to tackle late payment of commercial debts. The Conservative party in government did nothing to address those issues.
If the new clause were to be introduced, millions of workers would lose basic entitlements. Part-timers would be denied minimum rights. Parents would denied the security of knowing that they could take time off to look after their children.
Ours is a balanced approach that recognises the needs of small, medium and large businesses. We also recognise the responsibility that we have to ensure that all workers, whatever the size of the firm for which they work, have decent minimum standards of employment. The new clause seeks to deny that, which is why we shall resist it and vote against it in the Lobby.

Mr. Redwood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for the leadership that he has shown on this and other issues in Committee. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends who not only worked hard in Committee in the interests of all businesses, but have been present in this debate, unlike some of the Labour Members who were on the Committee. They either did not come to the Chamber for the debate or came but said absolutely nothing either in defence of the Government's policy, which is indefensible, or in support of our new clauses, which would make life a lot better.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is not aware that at times in Committee not one Conservative Back Bencher was present behind his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Mr. Redwood: I am well aware from the evidence of those Committee sittings that my hon. Friends made all the running. They had all the good ideas, took the debate to the Government, and Labour Members were remarkably silent on most of the important issues, as they have been today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) produced a tour de force and gave six very important reasons why these new clauses should be

accepted. I shall not repeat them, but I remind the House of the strong case he made. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) set out why it mattered to London that small businesses should be exempted so that they had more chance of flourishing and creating the jobs that parts of London still desperately need. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made a passionate case on behalf of small business, drawing on his own experience and that of his son, who now runs their successful family business despite the many burdens and costs imposed on it by the Government's policies.
7 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) put up a robust performance in support of the new clause and amendments, explaining why it was important for us to emulate the American model. We hear from Labour Members that they have been converted to parts of American enterprise capitalism, but they still do not seem to understand that small businesses are flourishing in the United States of America because they are exempt from most of the regulation that Labour proposes to inflict on British business in this and related legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made a strong case for businesses in her area, drawing on her constituency experience. My hon. Friend always puts the case for her local people with passion and skill. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) explained how absurd it was for the Government to claim that they believed in deregulation, while introducing measure after measure that imposes cost after cost on business—which in turn creates job loss after job loss, as we see every day.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that the Secretary of State had been heckled at a recent small business conference. I am not surprised that he was heckled; it was entirely predictable. If he had listened to small businesses, as we have in recent months, he would know how angry they are about this legislation, and about all the legislation that has already been foisted on them by a Government who do not understand their requirements.
The Secretary of State tells us that he now knows that small business wants more deregulation. He has promised small firms a pow-wow—a conference with him, enabling them to explain the ways in which they want more deregulation. We have been telling the right hon. Gentleman for months that they want more deregulation, and tonight, we have offered him a chance to show how that can be done. We have tabled two new clauses. If he accepts them after this short debate—he can do so, even at the eleventh hour—he will show not only that he has begun to understand that business is cross, but that he wants to do something about it. He should be saying sorry for the regulations that he has introduced, and for those introduced by his two predecessors, the two previous Presidents of the Board of Trade—as they liked to be known. Instead, we see a Secretary of State who has learned nothing, and who wants to do nothing to help the business cause that he should be furthering.

Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, despite the Secretary of State's honeyed words


in the Chamber tonight, his hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has refused to give any undertaking that the regulations resulting from the Bill will be shorter than those relating to the working time directive and the national minimum wage, which fill 72 and 112 pages respectively?

Mr. Redwood: They will doubtless be as long or longer. The Secretary of State clearly finds that amusing. He should try responding to that degree of regulation while running a small enterprise with only a few staff, and trying to make ends meet under Labour's economic policies.
The Secretary of State does not seem to understand that the problems caused by high interest rates, high exchange rates and high taxes—all of which I mentioned in my opening remarks—are being greatly compounded by legislation such as this, which leaves business chronically short of the cash that it needs to employ people, to invest in the future and to modernise—something of which the present Government might be expected to approve. We have heard a series of cheap, juvenile debating points from the right hon. Gentleman, which we have heard many times before and to which we have responded adequately in the past. Yes, there were job losses and closures in 1992; but when will the Labour party apologise for supporting the policies that were being pursued then, and when will it learn from them? When will it understand that it is beginning to replicate exactly the conditions that obtained at that time? We have listened; we have learned; we know that the present position is wrong. Why cannot the Secretary of State appreciate the damage that his rerun is doing to industry in this country?

Mr. Ian Stewart: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, given the inheritance left by his Government. One family in five in this country contains not one working person, and that does not include pensioners.

Mr. Redwood: We left a golden economic legacy of falling unemployment, low inflation, growth and prosperity, and a flourishing small business enterprise culture. That is being destroyed by this Government—by their wanton economic policies, and by the regulation and laws that they are introducing.
The Secretary of State says that I should show a little less passion, but I will not. This matters. The Secretary of State should try listening. He should understand that many livelihoods are being destroyed by this Government's policies, and he should wake up and do something about it.
The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry dared to smile when it was suggested that he should be worried about the shrinking of the small business sector as small businesses went under. He smiles again, in a rather lacklustre way. I assume that he is giggling now because he realises that the small business sector will not shrink. For every firm that goes under while this Government are in office, another medium-sized firm will shrink and replace it, becoming a new small firm. That is the Minister's small firms policy: if the medium-sized firms are damaged, he will have more candidates to preside over in his inimitable way.
The overwhelming weight of evidence from business organisations, Members of Parliament and constituents in businesses who lobby us points in the same direction. It suggests that small business must be exempted from these and any other regulations introduced by the Government. Does the Secretary of State understand that, if a firm with 21 employees which will be caught by the legislation in its present form needs one extra person to handle all the regulation and bureaucracy, that will constitute a 5 per cent. increase in its costs? For a firm with 1,000 employees, which may need only three extra people to handle the bureaucracy, the increase in costs will amount to only 0.3 per cent.—not welcome, but much less serious than the impact on the small firm. Is that fair? Does the Secretary of State wish to encumber small firms in such a way, allowing big firms a competitive advantage? That is one of our main reasons for proposing this important exemption.
An entrepreneur in a business with 20 or 30 employees may be the leader of a sales team. He may supervise production. He may be involved in design. He cannot take on more; yet the Secretary of State expects him to implement these measures, and supervise the company's response to a new range of statutory requirements.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether my hon. Friends and I want people to be denied leave when their children are ill. Of course we do not—that is an outrageous suggestion—but in a small business, in which employer and employee have an individual relationship, such matters can be sorted out without the law intruding. The law is far too clumsy. Resort to lawyers will not help relationships in small firms; it will hinder them. It will generate another unnecessary cost for a small firm that may go under as a result, because the burdens will be far too great.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to promise some new review of the regulatory burdens that he and his predecessors have introduced. It is not good enough for him to blame past Governments. The burden is much greater now, the protest is much stronger now, and the small business community is much angrier now, because of the huge burdens imposed by taxes and regulations under the present Government. They are throwing away our golden economic legacy. They are making it too dear to make things in Britain.
Labour is undoubtedly bad for business. If this Secretary of State wants to do some deregulating, he should start now by instructing his team of Members to back our new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 348.

Division No. 133]
[7.8 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brady, Graham


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Bercow, John
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Blunt, Crispin
(Chipping Barnet)


Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)






Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Colvin, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cran, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Curry, Rt Hon David
May, Mrs Theresa


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice 
Nicholls, Patrick


& Howden)
Norman, Archie


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forsythe, Clifford
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Townend, John


Hunter, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Wells, Bowen


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Woodward, Shaun


Lidington, David
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Stephen Day.


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Austin, John
Blackman, Liz


Baker, Norman
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Borrow, David


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Battle, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)





Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hanson, David


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cooper, Yvette
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hurst, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Dawson, Hilton
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Denham, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny


Donohoe, Brian H
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Edwards, Huw
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Efford, Clive
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kemp, Fraser


Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fisher, Mark
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kidney, David


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flynn, Paul
Kingham, Ms Tess


Follett, Barbara
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen






Laxton, Bob
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lepper, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Radice, Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Livsey, Richard
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Love, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonnell, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McLeish, Henry
Shaw, Jonathan


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stunell, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
(Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wallace, James


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
Webb, Steve





Welsh, Andrew
Winnick, David


White, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wood, Mike



Worthington, Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Wray, James


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Swansea W)



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Clelland.


Wills, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

CODES OF GOOD EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may prepare, with the assistance of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and after consultation with representatives of employers and employees, a Code or Codes of Good Employment Practice.
(2) Adherence to such a Code or Codes may be relied on as a defence to any proceedings before an employment tribunal by any employer who can demonstrate that his actions and procedures in connection with employment were reasonable in relation to the circumstances of his business, including its scale, turnover and labour force.
(3) No Code shall be issued under subsection (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 57.

Mr. Boswell: I declare an interest in respect of a number of amendments and new clauses that I have tabled. I do so as the employer of one full-time employee, and the occasional employer of others. I do so as a purely precautionary measure, because it is clear that almost any of the new clauses and amendments could bear on my position as an employer. I hasten to say that I have not been commissioned or encouraged by outside interests to table any amendments or initiate any debates. It is wise that everyone should know where we stand, and I may be able to draw briefly on my experience.
The new clause and Government amendment No. 57 clearly have a certain affinity, in that they relate to codes of practice for employment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said that there were no extensive Government contributions to the Committee. That is true in relation to Government Back Benchers; although, to be fair, some—including some present in the Chamber—made interesting and constructive, albeit brief, contributions.
Some effort was made by Ministers to answer the points that we made, although that was a little uneven, depending on the complexity of the points. I am awaiting some answers, including a definitive answer to the 13 points that I raised on a Government amendment.
I feel myself to be in the position of the lamp to which the moth is attached. Every time I table an amendment or new clause, lo and behold, a Government amendment attaches itself by a process of osmosis or suggestion. I can see nothing difficult about Government amendment


No. 57. Unless the Secretary of State succeeds in putting me off my stroke in his explanation of it, it seems to me that it has two great and welcome merits. First, it is shorter than the text that it proposes to replace. Secondly, it appears to introduce an affirmative rather than a negative procedure.
The idea in the code may have been instrumental to the idea that came to me in relation to the new clause. The code of practice that is set out in clause 19—with supplementary material in clause 20—concerns part-time work. This subject will repay further study before it comes into force, as I can see problems ahead. Just as in the debates on the minimum wage proposals on the subject of au pairs, we keep finding additional problems of one kind or another that must be resolved.
In terms of part-time work, a clear agenda is afoot. The TUC document on preparations for the euro states:
European collective bargaining is already under way. Two framework agreements have been signed on parental leave and part-time work.
Clause 19 suggests that one of the materials to appear in the code should be
any matter dealt with in the framework agreement on part-time work".
What might be termed the euro-industrial relations agenda is buzzing away merrily.
Such documents are not my usual nightly reading, but the other day I was reading representations from the Fire Brigades Union which analysed the position of retained firepersons. They are treated differently in a number of ways—in Committee, we referred to the training requirements of part-time work as additional costs of recruitment or retention—but they are paid a great deal less. If the Secretary of State persists with his equalisation in relation to part-time work, he may find that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary comes back to him to ask what he is doing to fire service finances.
New clause 3 is complementary to the approach set out with such eloquence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and other hon. Friends, in the previous debate. It rehearses some of the problems that affect real-world employers, such as me. New Labour might take comfort from the fact that the new clause is grounded in the drive towards the statement that all parties are in favour of consensus and partnership. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham rather brilliantly exposed some of the equivocations in that statement.
I do not find it easy to understand the concept of compulsory partnership. I believe that a partnership is one freely made by persons for their mutual advantage, rather than one imposed by an external force—the Government, or regulation—which seems to make people, as my late father always used to say, "good by Act of Parliament". It is much better, where possible, to seek agreement. In fairness, some Government Back Benchers have made those points also.
As a result of the progressive changes in trade union legislation and the change in culture effected by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there has been a significant shift in attitude or, more fairly, a confirmation of the more positive attitudes in the trade union side of industry. There are many on all sides who want partnership, consensus and constructive working together.
I am prepared to concede, as I have readily done in Committee, that there are from time to time bad employers and bad employment practices, which I would not condone. In all such matters, the issue is how much legislative intervention is appropriate to deal with the ills from which we may or may not suffer—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham eloquently said, whether the cure is worse than the perceived disease.
7.30 pm
It is no good our seeking to iron out every last infelicity in industrial relations by imposing yet another tissue of regulation, which increases businesses' costs and destroys their ability to run themselves effectively and to employ labour.
In his telling interventions at the beginning of the Bill's Committee stage, before he was taken ill, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), agreed with me when I made the fairly blunt point that if there is no job there will be no employment rights either. One comes logically before the other.
It is in that context that we offer the idea of codes of good employment practice. The suggestion—the Secretary of State may take this either as a compliment or as an attempt to wheedle—is grounded in what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in clause 19 in connection with part-time work. After consultation with the representatives of employers and employees, a code or codes of practice should be prepared with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which I hold in considerable regard.
The code or codes should embrace matters of good employment practice. They could be freestanding; there may be no need to legislate for them or to tie them to other legislative requirements. We had constructive debates in Committee about the fact that ACAS and both sides of industry, through the TUC, the CBI and others, such as the Engineering Employers Federation, can seek to achieve good standards of employment practice, and to improve those standards where possible. I hope that that is not an issue between the parties.
The distinctive feature of the codes that I propose is the way in which they may bite in connection with other employment rights, or with the way in which matters are dispatched at an employment tribunal.
We had a dry run for this debate in the exchanges at the beginning of our debate on new clause 11, relating to the removal of the limit on special damages. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the Secretary of State rightly said that an employment tribunal would be able to take into account many circumstances.
By definition—I am sure that if I did not say this, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) would remind me of it—a tribunal seeks to deal with matters involving failure or delinquency. If an employer behaves reasonably and in accordance with agreements he is not, in principle, likely to end up before a tribunal.
I understand that, and it is a fair point to make, but there are still some concerns, which can be illustrated in several ways and which underlay many of the contributions made by my hon. Friends in the debate on clause 1. Their experience, which I share, enables them to see the practical problems that small employers face.
In the nature of things—at least until the Bill takes effect—small employers are unlikely to be able to employ human relations specialists, or specialists of any kind. Small employers are multi-functional. They may be sole proprietors with one or two employees, but they still have to understand the law. There can be few people who are such paragons that they combine the ability to run a farm or small engineering or service business properly with the ability to be fully conversant with the provisions of the working time directive, the minimum wage regulations and the new regulations that will follow when the Bill becomes an Act.
The Secretary of State may rightly say that small businesses have access to employers' organisations and trade associations that may be able to steer them through. In my experience, for example, the National Farmers Union issues guidance to its members. I see the Secretary of State nodding; no doubt that response was in his mind.
The question is whether that guidance is sufficient to enable employers to comply with the regulations. In principle, they should be able to comply, but concerns arise in two respects. The first affects "genuine" employers. The House will know what I mean when I use that term—people who try to behave respectably and treat their employees decently, and to comply with the law as precisely as they can.
Even with such people, difficulties can occur. The Government's track record of having to amend their legislation, and their advice on the working time directive and the minimum wage regulations, as they go along, shows us that it would be a paragon indeed who did not occasionally slip up.
The general conduct of a business, and the bona fides with which it is carried on, must be—at least, should be—a relevant factor in any deliberations that take place before a tribunal hearing a claim for, say, unfair dismissal. In principle, a tribunal ought already to be able to take that into account. However, the fear remains in employers' minds that they may slip up on a technicality—that something may go slightly wrong and trigger a course of action leading to undesirable and expensive consequences.
The second concern is connected with the first. Even if a business is conducted to the highest possible standards, it may from time to time have a difficult employee who does not always behave reasonably—although I am not saying that simply because someone is unreasonable he has no employment rights. Even an employer who wishes to conduct his business to the highest possible standards may fall foul of a tribunal—not necessarily in substance, because he may win his case eventually, but because of the sheer hassle of having to engage lawyers and explain actions that were probably not written down formally, because they never had been before. For small businesses that may have a seasonal turnover or other complications, life is too short for all that.
The employer may lose or win, but whatever happens, the costs will have been incurred and the hassle endured. Those considerations operate as a considerable disincentive to people in small businesses who are considering whether to make the "step change" decision to move from self-employment to taking on one or two people and becoming an employer. That is a shame,

because so many small businesses have been fruitful in creating employment when larger businesses have been shedding labour.
Small business people may say, "It isn't worth the candle; I'm not going to become an employer and risk all that." That is the context in which we propose our new clause, the operative part of which is subsection (2):
Adherence to such a Code or Codes may be relied on as a defence to any proceedings before an employment tribunal by any employer who can demonstrate that his actions and procedures in connection with employment were reasonable in relation to the circumstances of his business, including its scale, turnover and labour force.
We do not expect to impose significant changes of practice on Sainsbury's, ICI or other major household names, yet those businesses may not be creating the employment opportunities that they created in the past when they grew from small to very large businesses. However, the codes are primarily related to new businesses, or those struggling to keep going which have one or two employees. There is no reason why good practice should not be codified for all businesses, but there may be cases in which an employer can say, "I did my best under the circumstances. You can look back at my track record to see that I tried to do a good and honest job, which I hoped conformed to the code.
Clearly, a lot of flesh remains to be put on the bones, but the Secretary of State laid down the skeleton with his code of good practice for part-time employment, and he would do well to consider our idea. We all want good practice and good relations in the workplace, but they may be better secured by our approach than by a narrow, regulation-driven philosophy. Essentially, good industrial relations should be forged in the workplace, not brought out by contentious litigation.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) presented his proposals with characteristic modesty. As one who has worked in companies that varied from having 19,000 employees down to 25, I can assure the Secretary of State that one sometimes comes across an awkward employee. One tries to reason with him or to help him, but if he continues to be awkward, one must get rid of him.
Some employees have milked the system—particularly the employment tribunals—time and again, and it sometimes takes time to find that out. No sensible employer wants bad working practices. A good product requires a contented work force.
Legislation is an extremely crude instrument. It cannot deal with all the different types of companies, whether they are services or industrial firms. It cannot deal with companies of different size and ethos. It can, however, impose onerous regulations and rules on companies that cost money and, consequently, jobs.
In law in general, acting in a reasonable manner is a satisfactory defence, and it would be sensible to translate that principle into employment law. First, that would overcome the crudity of exercising the law alone. Secondly, it would provide flexibility to deal with different types and sizes of company. Thirdly, it would provide a defence against a bloody-minded or awkward employee who has to be got rid of.
I can tell the House how much it costs to get rid of an awkward employee. The minimum is likely to be between £12,000 and £15,000. Preparing the case will take at least


two days of senior management time. For two more days—often longer—senior managers will have to leave the workplace to present the case.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the normal and rational reaction of a management faced with that kind of cost is to settle out of court for almost any lower sum?

Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend has shot my fox. In addition to preparation time, the business may require to hire legal counsel. An appearance in person is also required. I have asked the Secretary of State whether it would be possible for small businesses to put their cases to tribunals in writing, but he said no. I have seen the problems from the employers' side. With a minimum cost of £12,000 to £15,000, one realises that one has a better job to do—actually running the company. Often, therefore, the employer gives in and pays up.
That encourages the awkward employee. I have come across multiple-claim employees who make a nice little living by doing just enough to ensure that they are entitled to take an employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal or whatever, whereupon they rake it in.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of an aberrant worker who puts in multiple claims. Is he aware, from all his experience, that there is a two-year time limit on making a claim for unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal? Is he aware that the average award amounts to hundreds of pounds, not thousands?

Mr. Sayeed: I agree. I do not say that the problem I have outlined is common or normal. Most employees work hard, want their companies to do well and want themselves to do well as a result. The Bill seeks to reduce the time limit referred to by the hon. Gentleman from two years to one.
I recall the case of an employee who had had maternity leave and sick leave and a whole variety of other things, in a very small company in which her job was so critical that another person had to be hired to do it. The employee could not physically manage a return to the specific job and would not do any other job. She claimed unfair dismissal. I do not say that that case is normal. The point is that there are sometimes abuses of the system. Companies should have a defence of acting reasonably.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for a new provision, but, under existing provisions, an industrial tribunal may hold a pre-hearing assessment to consider several criteria, one of which is whether there is any merit in the case or whether it is frivolous or vexatious.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. However, before an employer gets that far, he must have done all the preparation and spent a considerable amount of management time gathering the documents and evidence together. The smaller the company, the more important the manager is to it.
I do not suggest that abuse is widespread. I do not suggest that most employees are on the fiddle: they are not. However, two things are required. First, a defence

must be provided, and that can be done by creating a code of practice acceptable to and understood by employees and management. The second point, on which I am on all fours with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, is that there should be a code or codes. We will need codes, because they will have to cover different types and sizes of companies that operate in different ways. Once those codes are agreed, they can be adapted over time.
New clause 3 would be a valuable addition to the Bill. The House should not make unnecessary laws, because they are held in contempt and constitute a legislative and financial burden on companies that have to implement them. I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and I hope that the Secretary of State will implement them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It is always nice to support the Government in some small way, and I welcome the fact that Government amendment No. 57 will introduce the positive resolution procedure for the regulations proposed under the Bill. However, my understanding is that a single regulation or number of regulations made under the Bill would be discussed for only an hour and a half, and that is not enough for regulations of such complexity. I appreciate that that is not necessarily a point for the Minister, but perhaps the House authorities could address the time that is allowed to consider detailed regulations. I am concerned that the Government cannot properly do their job if they produce an unamendable regulation with only an hour and a half for discussion. Colleagues sometimes want to get away as quickly as possible and the House often does not scrutinise such regulations properly.
The Opposition would prefer not to have the regulations, because we would not wish to be so prescriptive. I pray in aid of new clause 3 the excellent speech in Committee by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, in which he rightly pointed to the good sense of adopting codes of practice, as opposed to the letter of the law. The problem that arises when tribunals are asked to judge issues against the strict law is that the situation becomes legalistic, not one in which both sides address what is reasonable. Both the employer and employee have to be reasonable. The Opposition do not condone bad business practice or bad practices by employees: we simply say that the best solution is often to use a code of practice, so that if a small business is taken to a tribunal, it can claim that it acted reasonably and be judged on that basis.
The Minister for Small Firms—who is unpaid and likes me to remind the House of that, so that someone will hear and ensure that he is eventually paid for his excellent work—made a very good speech about age discrimination and the difficulty that one has in nailing down any discrimination in a strict law. I shall paraphrase parts of his speech. He said that the Government were taking a measured approach and intended to use the lessons learned from the initiatives to form future plans. He said that we needed to change the attitudes of employers and that the results of consultation published last year pointed to a non-statutory code of practice as the best way to encourage this process of change. He added that if we did not change the culture, we would not solve the problems. What good common sense from the Minister! It was almost his last speech in Committee and he was beginning to understand what the Conservatives were saying. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats were not saying the same things, because they wanted even more regulation.
The Minister continued by saying that the code would bring real benefits in promoting good recruitment and employment practices. That is a sensible approach. The Government went further and said that they would monitor this code's effectiveness, but that they would not evaluate it until February 2001. It will be too late for them to legislate by then and they have, therefore, made it certain that legislation on age discrimination has been kicked into the long grass.
New clause 3 reminds the Government that codes of practice and reasonableness are the way forward. The Conservative party has a proud record. For years, Governments of all colours tried to solve the problem of strikes. I remember the wonderful document, "In Place of Strife" produced by Barbara Castle, now Lady Castle. That became a reality under Conservative legislation. We are proud of that record and willing to pass it on, as part of our golden legacy, to the Labour Government. They have said the right things when talking to business audiences, but unfortunately, the Bill does not deliver. New clause 3 would give the Government a chance to add reasonableness to the Bill and it would be better for it.

Mr. Byers: As Opposition Members have pointed out, Government amendment No. 57 requires the Government to subject the code of practice on part-time work to the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand that it fulfils a commitment given in Committee and I am pleased to honour it this evening. I shall, however, ask the House to resist new clause 3. In so doing, I should add that there is not much that divides the comments made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the approach that the Government intend to take to the issue.
The debate about regulation versus codes of good practice reflects the points made in discussion of new clauses 1 and 2. The Government are considering carefully in which areas a code would be more appropriate than the introduction of a raft of regulations. Many of the comments by Opposition Members were well made and, when we talk about reducing the burden of regulation on business, it may be that the adoption of codes will be a better approach, especially if those codes are discussed and the business community—and employee representatives—are consulted. We can then bring the proposals before the House and discuss them, even if only for an hour and a half—I understand the reservations that have been expressed on that point. That would represent a new approach and an attempt to create a consensus on these important issues.

Mr. Bruce: I have tried to demonstrate the Conservative Government's experience of such legislation and I urge the Secretary of State to be very careful. Two of his colleagues have already fallen foul of the employment law, although I am sure that they have dealt with the situation honourably. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will have to appear in front of a tribunal and the Lord Chancellor has lost before a tribunal. I am sure that both of them have a reasonable case, but they have had to go to the trouble and expense of trying to defend themselves, their honour and their political reputations.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for the issues to be dealt with by codes rather than by detailed

regulation. Our difficulty with new clause 3 is that it would give an umbrella right to the Secretary of State to introduce codes wherever he or she felt that that was appropriate. The Government prefer a more targeted approach. We acknowledge that codes will be more appropriate in some cases, but a power already exists, under sections 199 and 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, that enables the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, much as the hon. Member for Daventry suggested.
Such codes must first be published in draft for consultation, after which they may be modified before being submitted to Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses. Where we consider it necessary, we will use the powers to issue codes of practice on certain aspects of this Bill. I have already said that we intend to do so in relation to part-time work. We feel that that would be welcome.
8 pm
We also intend to draw up a code on grievance and disciplinary procedures to complement the Bill's provisions, especially in relation to the right to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary proceedings. Some hon. Members may have thought that we would introduce a raft of regulations to do that. We feel that a code would be more appropriate.
We will also produce a code of practice on access to the work force in relation to our proposals on statutory trade union recognition. Again, we feel that that area is far better dealt with by code than detailed regulation. The important thing to remember, as with all statutory industrial relations codes, is that the new codes will make recommendations on good practice and prescribe the law to which they relate. Most importantly, they can be taken into account by tribunals and courts, particularly when they have to decide whether the behaviour of either party, the employer or the employee, is reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. Sayeed: The Secretary of State has said that the codes "can" be taken into account. Could he be more robust and say "should"? When a company has demonstrated that it acted reasonably, the ability to take that into account is important.

Mr. Byers: Tribunals generally take codes into account. That is why the codes are there.
I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will seek leave to withdraw new clause 3, but, if the measure is pushed to a Division, I ask the House to resist it because it could make all tribunal rights subject to a code of practice as it would introduce an overriding power. I have reservations about that which reflect our previous debate. The new clause could introduce a raft of quasi-regulation in the form of codes. It could be very wide-ranging. There is a strong argument for being focused about the areas that we subject to code of practice procedures.
I fear that if there are minor transgressions by either party, the code of practice under the new clause could be used against their interests. An employee or employer who failed to comply with the code's details could be in


some difficulty. The better approach is to have a focused code of good practice which will come before the House to be debated and consulted upon. We can then move forward and hon. Members will know exactly which codes we intend to introduce, rather than going down the route of prescriptive regulation.
As we look forward to creating a climate in which regulation is not automatically the first option for Ministers, I hope that they will consider codes of practice as a better avenue down which to go. We shall then be able to make progress using the powers that we already have under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 rather than the wider-ranging powers that new clause 3 would give the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept Government amendment No. 57 and that the hon. Member for Daventry will seek leave to withdraw his new clause in the light of my comments.

Mr. Boswell: This has been an unusually thoughtful and fruitful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who did well to remind the House of the practical problems of employers in compiling and defending cases at employment tribunals. The considerable costs may lead them to make decisions that are not in their best interests, or that they might have chosen not to make, but found to be the least bad alternative in the circumstances. It is important to put that on record to give the lie to the assumption that things are always all right under the umbrella of reasonableness at employment tribunals. As the Secretary of State intuited, the difficulty is that once regulation is in place, it can be something of an unguided missile. It is not always possible to produce a result that is felt to be just while being legally coherent.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for his remarks and for reminding us of the comments of the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in Committee on what is rapidly becoming in this respect—perhaps we should pass on hastily—something of a consensus about the approach. That characterised the Secretary of State's response to my suggestions. He might even have mentioned that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act dates from 1992 and reflects the wisdom of his Conservative predecessors and, in fairness, the considerable custom and practice that has built up around ACAS and its ability to advise on such matters.
It was refreshing to hear a widening in the Secretary of State's remarks of the concept, in clause 19, of the part-time work code to other areas, including grievance and disciplinary procedures and access to the work force. I had not wholly anticipated those points, not least because they are not set out in the Bill, whereas the code in clause 19 is explicit. Those announcements were welcome, as was his general approach. I understand what he was driving at. Targeting is interesting, and we might debate it in the context of social security legislation, but not tonight. The exact balance of rights and responsibilities that can be carried by codes or by other means is difficult to follow.
I see the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) across the Chamber. We are all striving to find ways, as he did with his Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill last year, of alternative dispute resolution. We do not want disputes to go to the wall

if it is possible to avoid that by good practice and common sense. I recognise the interest of all parties, including the trade unions, in that matter. Let us work on the presumption that the Secretary of State is driving in the right direction. We need to see more; we will need to see the codes. It would help him if, instead of having them thrown at us in the confrontational atmosphere of a 90-minute debate, we could have a pre-draft hearing, or a look at a draft, so that we could talk about it and see whether we could contribute ideas, as I am sure that my hon. Friends would wish. I do not ask him to respond to that now. On that note of qualified consensus, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK—PLACE ON GROUNDS OF AGE

'—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's age.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—
(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above;
(d) specify exceptional circumstances in which, in any proceedings arising under this section, it would be a defence for an employer to show, having regard to the nature and commercial viability of the business or undertaking in question, that—
(i) it was reasonable for him, in deciding to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter, to take account of the respective ages of the relevant employees, or
(ii) age was not a significant factor in any decision to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter.
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—
Discrimination in the work-place on grounds of sexual orientation—
'—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—
(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 6—Discrimination in the work-place (general prohibition)—
'—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on any grounds specified in the regulations.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.
(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Chidgey: The new clauses deal primarily with discrimination in employment. New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age, new clause 5 on the ground of sexual orientation, and new clause 6 on any grounds that the Secretary of State may from his experience see fit to specify.
The new clauses expose a glaring omission in the Bill. The Government failed to grasp the opportunity to end discrimination in the workplace. They also expose a basic breach of a pledge made by the Government during the general election. Having made such a blatant remark,

if Labour Members doubt me I refer them to their manifesto, which I happen to have in my hand. I am sure that we all remember it. Page 35 talks in glowing terms of equal rights for the citizen. It says:
We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists.
That is a sound sentiment, and it is one that I am happy to endorse.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chidgey: I shall make a little progress and then I shall be happy to give way. It should be a fundamental right that no person should suffer discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, gender, age or sexual orientation. I hope that that is a view shared by every hon. Member, regardless of party. I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).

Mr. Fabricant: I wished to make a comment that was appropriate to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, but he has moved on and I do not want to break his flow.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman is so kind. Sadly, the moment comes and then it goes.
It surely must be the view of each and every Labour Member who campaigned throughout the general election on the basis of new Labour's manifesto pledges that no person should suffer discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation is not prohibited by law, yet it is just as prevalent and pernicious in the workplace as any other form of discrimination.
New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age. I want to take a few salient examples of areas in which such discrimination is rife. The teaching profession is one. We are told that there is a crisis in teacher supply, but it could be that schools are guilty of ageism. Whenever we have reports of shortages of teachers, a few days later there is a flurry of letters in the broadsheets from older teachers who complain that they cannot get jobs even in maths and science, which are areas of scarcity.
I raised this matter in Committee, and it is worth emphasising the work of Alan Smithers, a professor of education at Liverpool university. He cites many examples of discrimination on the ground of age. A gentleman referred to as Bob has a degree in chemistry and 22 years of experience in industry. He trained as a teacher in 1997 as a second career. He applied for more than 50 jobs and received just six interviews, but each time the post went to a younger person. All that he can get is part-time supply work.
The second case is a woman called Melissa, a teacher of secondary maths—another area of shortage. She broke off to do educational research and she has come back with a PhD in education, but she is unable to get a post as a teacher. A gentleman called John happens to live, and previously worked, in my constituency in Eastleigh. He has a 2.1 honours degree and a PhD in modern languages—supposedly very much a shortage subject. He qualified as a teacher 27 years ago and at that time had no problem getting a job. Since then, he has worked for many years as a teacher, three as a head of a modern languages department. He then spent eight years training


teachers as a senior lecturer in a local college of higher education, but following a change in the college's curriculum his post was declared redundant when the language teaching area was closed down. That was three years ago.
In the past three years, John has applied for more than 160 teaching posts. Not one has resulted in a job offer, even though he has kept his teaching experience up to date and modern by working continually as a supply teacher. On the rare occasions on which he has reached the shortlist for a job, he has been told, "You were the best candidate, but we chose someone less well qualified because we thought they would fit in better with a younger team." Or he was told, "We are under a lot of pressure these days to appoint bright young people." John is an extremely successful teacher. His referees confirm that he delivers considerable value for money, but his problem is that he is 47.

Mr. Brady: Many of the cases that the hon. Gentleman cites are worthy. Will he comment on the situation that I know frequently to be the case in the employment of teachers? The reason why an older teacher is not engaged is not simply age but the fact that he would be more expensive to recruit because he is more experienced. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman's new clause would apply in those circumstances.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he will allow me, I will come to that and explain the position. Interestingly enough, John has gone through just those hoops. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment, I will come to the point that he makes.
John is told by the Association of Teachers Against Ageism that his case is typical. The statistics show that teachers of 45 or over are twice as likely to be unemployed six months after completing their training as new teachers in their 20s.
Ageism is by no means confined to teaching. John wrote to me in August last year and to the Department for Education and Employment at the same time. The DFEE replied sympathetically. It said:
Ministers believe that schools recognise that more experienced teachers have much to offer … They are also aware that experienced teachers entitled to a higher salary felt they could be at a disadvantage. They have, therefore, introduced"—
not are taking, but have introduced—
a measure to assist schools who employ teachers with an entitlement to a higher salary.
That was last September. I went to see John in Eastleigh at the weekend. His job applications tally has now risen to 185 and he still has no offer of a post.
Ageism is by no means confined to teaching; it can be found in many professions. It is certainly present in the mercantile marine—an area of employment that is, or at least used to be, prevalent in Southampton, with its shipping interests. I know of many examples of ageism. One is of a chief engineer with 30 years of experience, 10 years as chief officer. He applied for a job on an oil tanker, but was told that the company did not employ chief engineers over 45.
A deck officer qualified as a pilot and went on deep sea duties to acquire the experience that he needed at sea to apply for the senior positions for which he

was qualified, but by the time that he had acquired a suitable certificate, he was 39. He was refused the post as a pilot because he was too old. He had to go to sea to get the experience, and that took time, but by the time he got back he was too old to get to the job.
There is a wealth of experience to show that age discrimination is prevalent. The over-40s find themselves bypassed for promotion. The over-45s have less opportunity for job-related training—a matter that we should look into. The over-50s find it difficult even to get an interview—John is in that situation, although he is younger. The over-55s are more likely to be long-term unemployed. Age discrimination in the workplace curtails individual opportunity. It wastes resources by forcing many older people into early retirement. Negative and inaccurate assumptions about the capabilities and abilities of older people are reinforced in many organisations.
The Secretary of State talked a few months ago about changing the culture. Well, here is where he could start. Many organisations have pay and conditions structures that make it financially more attractive to replace older people with younger people. The experience and skills of older workers are often undervalued and unrecognised by employers and older workers can be regarded as less capable and adaptable than younger people. Studies show that older workers may give better service, have lower rates of absenteeism and stay in the post longer than younger people. Older people have staying power, and I say that from the heart.

Mr. Brady: I confess that I am guilty of the age discrimination that the hon. Gentleman highlights, in that I tend to favour employing older people because I find that they have greater staying power and more commitment to their job. Surely, under the proposed new clause that practice would be illegal.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman usually looks through Bills with forensic skill, so I am surprised at his comment. Perhaps he was half asleep, because if he had read the new clause carefully he would know that it refers to "age", not to a particular age. The clause covers age discrimination, whether the person is young or old; it applies—although not perhaps equally—to many age groups.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because I want to clear up this point. I fear that I have been the subject of an unjust calumny. I do not necessarily claim to be forensic, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is making my point. The fact that the new clause would outlaw discrimination on the ground of age, whether old or young, is precisely my point; there may be extremely good reasons for choosing to employ an older person, but that would be outlawed under the new clause.

Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point a little clearer. My point is that people's employment should be based on their ability; the only discrimination that should exist in the workplace is over a person's competence to do the job. That is what the new clause is about.
I readily accept that anti-age discrimination legislation would not in itself change the underlying negative attitudes that exist, but it would be an important step towards ensuring that employers change their practices. There is strong support from industry.

Mr. Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend refers to the possibility that legislation might not change attitudes. That was also true of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill 1998, which was adopted by the Government on the understanding that we needed a stick, but that we also needed to change the culture.

Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Time and again, the Government have told us that the legislation that they wanted to have the power to enact through enabling Bills was merely a background to the problems that they hoped to solve through discussion and consultation. I accept that, but I do not see why we should not have the necessary sticks to back up the consultation that the Government hope will be successful.
There is strong support for legislation to tackle age discrimination. In a recent survey, the Institute of Management found that about 60 per cent. of managers favoured legislation to restrict the use of age limits in job advertisements and about 65 per cent. favour comprehensive employment protection legislation. Some organisations will argue that a voluntary code and the promotion of the advantages of older workers is enough and that legislation is not necessary. From its briefing notes, the Confederation of British Industry appears to be a case in point. The CBI argues that age discrimination is extremely difficult to define; so are many elements of the Bill, but that has not prevented the Government from introducing legislation. The CBI asks:
What should be the comparator age?
I dealt with that point earlier. The CBI argues that not all differential treatment on the ground of age is unreasonable, giving the example that older workers do not have comparable training needs to younger workers—what an admission. Throughout industry and commerce, firms are suffering from severe skills shortages, yet according to the CBI it is okay to discriminate against older workers in investment and training. No wonder the highest levels of unemployment are among those aged 45 or older, whose skills have not been kept up to date and who find themselves with obsolete techniques in industries that also deserve to be obsolete.

Mr. Boswell: I hold no particular brief for the CBI, but I think that the point its members were making is that older workers might not need training because they were already fully trained. Although some of them might need training, their entitlement to training might be somewhat different from that of other workers.

Mr. Chidgey: I should very much like to agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but the CBI briefing refers to
older members nearing retirement age".

The CBI completely missed the point of the clause; its briefing refers only to older workers. As I have pointed out, younger workers are often stifled and prevented from getting promotion on their ability because they happen to be too young according to the practices of the firm for which they work. I disagree with the CBI. Apparently, the Government disagree with the CBI too—or at least they did disagree.
In 1996, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), spoke in a debate on the Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill. Incidentally, I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be in the Chamber today; I know that he has been unwell and I wish him a speedy recovery. I mean no disrespect to the Minister on the Treasury Bench when I say that I would have been pleased to see the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box; I know that he would have wanted to be here to defend what he said when he was in opposition. He stated:
The Labour party's position is quite clear … an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal. We shall consult on the legislation. We want to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place to enable employers to change their workplace practices, with co-operation between management and workplace representatives. —[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]
A well-made speech. I can hear the right hon. Gentleman saying those words in ringing tones. I agree; those are my sentiments exactly.
The CBI has made a range of "what if" objections to the clause; they are not dissimilar to the probing amendments to the Bill introduced in Committee. However, in each case the Government responded to those amendments by saying—more or less—that the carrot of voluntary codes is not sufficient, and that that carrot needs to backed up by a legislative stick, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) pointed out. In every case, the Government made the point that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations should he see the need to do so and only after consultation. However, the power to make such regulations will be in force in law.
With new clause 4, I am not asking for any more than that. If the Government accept the new clause, they will have grasped the opportunity to ensure that, in employment relations, discrimination in the work force on the basis of age will be prohibited, with the force of law to back up that prohibition.
New clause 5 would, in relation to employment, prohibit discrimination by an employer against another person on the ground of sexual orientation. The issue first came to my notice when I was first elected in 1994, because in my Eastleigh constituency a case involving such discrimination came to light and subsequently became internationally known. The case involved two women—Lisa Grant and her partner Jill Pearcey—who happened to live not far from my offices in Eastleigh. Lisa told me that, as an employee of South West Trains, she was entitled to privileged rail travel; and that, if she had been married, that privilege would have extended to her husband, or, in these enlightened times, to her common law spouse if she had had one. However, because her partner is the same sex as her, she has been denied those travel rights, even though the policy document issued by


the previous employer and kept in place—British Rail's employment policy document—stated that such discrimination is unacceptable.
Many hon. Members will recall the case because Lisa and Jill took their case to an industrial tribunal, which in due course referred it to the European Court of Justice. Their case was presented for them by an eminent and, I believe, very able Queen's Counsel—none other than Cherie Booth, QC. The outcome was that although the European Parliament has declared that it deplores all forms of discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation, the European Union itself has not yet adopted rules to provide for such equality.
In most member states, a stable relationship between two people of the same sex is treated as equivalent to a stable relationship between a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married. It is important, because that is not true in Britain. As a consequence, the European Court of Justice found that although in principle the European Parliament and the European Union deplore discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, no EC law currently exists to cover such circumstances; and, as no such law exists in the UK either, the court had no option but to find against Lisa and Jill. However, at the same time, the court called on the British Parliament to close the loophole that allowed the discrimination to continue.

Mr. Wilkinson: Although I have no truck with the European Union arrogating to itself a function that rightly appertains to member states—namely, to decide social policy within them—is it not true that, had that action been successful, it might have opened the floodgates to all sorts of spurious claims, with people purporting to be partners when they were only friends and individuals and thereby gaining rights and entitlements that were not rightfully theirs?

Mr. Chidgey: I can respond only by saying that the ECJ's point was that no such law or regulation exists in the UK, although it does in many other European countries; and that because of that, the ECJ was not able to try or come to a conclusion on the case—it was outside the court's jurisdiction.

Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some companies have overcome the problem of determining what is or is not a spurious claim? For example, the John Lewis Partnership offers discounts to partners and to the partners of partners, entitlement being based on the number of years the partners have lived together. There are ways of getting around the problem.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The key word in the description is that it is a "stable" relationship—a phrase which could apply equally to a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married and to a same-sex couple, the key test being whether the relationship is long term and stable. Many of Britain's top 100 companies have policies ensuring that they do not discriminate against people on the ground of their sexual orientation.
The new clause provides an opportunity for the UK to introduce laws that match those of our neighbouring European countries—an opportunity to end that type

of discrimination. The case of Lisa and Jill is by no means unique: recent surveys among gay men and lesbians show that 16 per cent. have faced discrimination at work and another 21 per cent. suspect that they have suffered discrimination on the ground of their sexuality; and 48 per cent. have faced harassment, including ostracism, threats and even physical violence. In 1995, Social and Community Planning Research undertook an independent survey of employees of all sexual orientations. It found that one in three heterosexuals is less likely to hire an applicant if they know the applicant to be gay or lesbian—a telling fact. In 1998, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its publication "Equality in the 21st Century", included a recommendation that:
There should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men.
In another place, the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill was passed, but there was insufficient parliamentary time for it to become law by passing through this House.
As the law stands, it is not unlawful to refuse to appoint someone because of their sexuality. Treating someone less favourably because of their sexuality is not unlawful; harassing someone because of their sexuality is not unlawful; and dismissing someone because of their sexuality is not generally unlawful. New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection.

Mr. Healey: This is a useful rehearsal of the problems of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and age and reinforces the argument for some action in that area. However, does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Department for Education and Employment is currently receiving representations from various agencies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, about the need to consolidate and update discrimination legislation across the board? Might it not be better to deal with those issues in consolidated discrimination legislation rather than in this Bill?

Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that the Department for Education and Employment is panicking about the problem as it affects teachers. However, I imagine that its legislation will cover only the teaching profession. I contend that the problem of discrimination is endemic in all of industry and commerce.

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman is eager to contribute—he must have been briefed about this issue. I have followed the Bill through the Committee stage, and I do not accept the Government's "wait and see" approach. During consideration of the Bill, the Government said time and again that they wanted the power to make regulations in case they were needed. What is so different about my proposed new clause? I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Healey: I have also followed the Bill through every stage, I have attended every Committee sitting so far, and I have not been briefed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am talking not about teachers but about responsibility. The Department


for Education and Employment is responsible for anti-discrimination legislation. It holds that brief, not the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. However, I do not foresee any problems if such legislation were to be on the statute book. I do not think there would necessarily be a clash of responsibilities. I do not profess to be a legal or a parliamentary clerk, but that is the sort of excuse we tend to hear when Governments do not want to do what most people think they should.
New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection from discrimination in employment to lesbians and gay men. Like so many others in the Bill, it is an enabling clause. It would give the Government the opportunity at last to prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation in the workplace. The Government are on record in another place as expressing reservations about only the scope and timing of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, not its good intentions. This new clause is specific in its scope. Its intentions are clear and precise, and I urge the Minister to grasp this opportunity to convert the Government's rhetoric into law.
In Standing Committee, the Minister acknowledged:
a gap exists in the protection that we offer some individuals. The Government deplore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Minister then admitted that the Government had no clear plans to deal with the issue in the foreseeable future, and said:
it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 580.]
That is not good enough. The Government have made much of codes of practice on ageism and have commissioned research to test their effectiveness. However, they are silent about discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. At the very least, they should make a commitment tonight to draw up a code of practice on sexual orientation rather than simply promising to consult.
New clause 4 refers to the general prohibition of discrimination in employment, as the Secretary of State may specify from time to time in the regulations. Time and again, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations as he thinks fit—and when we probe the Government on the detailed applications of the Bill, they reply that it is an enabling Bill and that detailed regulations will be introduced after consultation and as appropriate.
If the Secretary of State finds new clauses 4 and 5 too specific and rigid, perhaps he will accept new clause 6, which would provide a general power following precisely the line that the Government have taken throughout our debates on the Bill. New clause 6 would, in the words of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—now the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—enable the Government
to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place".—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]

It would also allow the Government to keep their election manifesto promise to
seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
I look forward to the Minister accepting new clause 6 and demonstrating that that is one promise that the Government will keep.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about new clauses 4 and 5. I pay tribute to him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. As he said, it is nonsense that the rulings that have been made in our courts—although they must abide by existing legislation—clearly discriminate against lesbians and gay men in partnership arrangements.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives in tabling new clause 4 because, like other hon. Members, I have had constituency cases involving people who were clearly victims of age discrimination. Teachers, in particular, experience such problems.
It is absurd that, as the Court of Appeal held in Smith v Gardner Merchant in 1998, the proper comparison for a claim under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is between a male and female homosexual, and where an employer can show that a lesbian and a gay man are treated equally badly, there is no case for sex discrimination. What we have, according to the present law of the land, is equality of misery or injustice, and clearly a Government who are intent on equality of opportunity and equal rights should not be prepared to countenance that for longer than is necessary. I therefore have enormous sympathy with the aims of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
The question is: what is the appropriate mechanism within government for remedying that problem? It is well known—we should be cheerful about this fact—that increasing numbers of employers in the private and public sectors have introduced equal opportunity policies that include anti-discrimination terms for lesbians and gay men. That is to be applauded, but there will always be those who fall through the gaps. The survey to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred underlines the need for us to introduce legislation to deal with that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) referred to the Department for Education and Employment. In certain circumstances, it would be most appropriate for that Department to introduce legislation on this matter.
Equally, it is important that, whatever the House decides, we send out a very strong message that hon. Members and the Government will not tolerate discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation for longer than necessary. I shall therefore be looking to the Minister to comment in his reply on what he believes is appropriate. In Committee, he said that it was too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would he the appropriate way to proceed. I am in no doubt that the time for some legislative measure to proceed is well past. It is extremely important that this injustice is remedied.
If we are to remedy an injustice, it is important that we have evidence on which to proceed. I shall look to the Minister to comment on what can be done in his Department to produce evidence that shows an awareness of this problem and therefore underlines the need for legislative activity.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider this matter not just in the employed sector, but in the professional sectors—whether it be in medicine or dentistry, at the Bar or in the Law Society—where discrimination on the ground of gender, as well as on other grounds, often occurs?

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am particularly grateful to him for highlighting that point. That was precisely why I particularly approved of the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. A range of issues in this area—not least ageism—should be addressed. I do not wish this debate to be seen as taking place in a ghetto. I agree absolutely that the professions have a particular responsibility in this area, which, in some respects, has been indifferently discharged. It is important that we ventilate this issue. I shall be looking for some assurances from the Minister on it.

Mr. Fabricant: I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), although I shall mainly address my remarks to new clause 4, which concerns ageism. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. My ex-bank manager, Ken Stevens of Lloyds bank in Brighton, said when I was 33 years old that I was a young whiz kid. Now, at the age of 48, I am just an old has-been. Nevertheless, this matter needs to be taken seriously; things cannot continue as at present, for three reasons.
First, ageism is fundamentally unfair and immoral. It is the very issue that the House is here—and has been here for hundreds of years—to address. Ageism is quite simply wrong. The second reason is that older people have a lot to offer new companies—companies with fewer than 50 employees, about which we heard earlier, and large corporations, too. Mature people have not only staying power, but experience and solidity. I shall say more about that later.
The real reason why I say that the present situation cannot be sustained is that we are facing a demographic time bomb. I shall cite a couple of statistics. It is estimated that, by 2000, one person in three in employment will be over 40 years of age. More worryingly, by 2025, if present trends continue, less than 20 per cent. of the population will be working. All the rest will be unemployed, enjoying leisure or students, so 20 per cent. of the population will be paying the tax and the benefits for themselves and 80 per cent. of the population. That is unsustainable, and we should think twice before we reject the new clause.
In opposition, Labour Members also took the view that the position was unsustainable. I, too, am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is not here today, and I hope that he will soon recover; but, back in 1995, when he was Labour's employment spokesman, he promised to introduce legislation, when a Labour Government were elected, to make age discrimination illegal. That has not happened.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Fabricant: I will give way in a moment, but, in case the hon. Gentleman—my good friend in the corner—

thinks that that remark was a fluke, I shall quote the Minister of State again. Before the 1997 general election, the Conservative Government blocked a private Member's Bill to make ageism illegal. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made a serious miscalculation in opposing that Bill and that a generation that either had lost its jobs or feared unemployment expected Parliament to act. So here we are, two years on. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, but what do we see? Unless there is a change of heart, the Minister will oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).

Mr. Bermingham: I agree that all those comments were made in the previous Parliament; I was there.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any society that says that people who reach 50, 55 or 60—I notice some of my hon. Friends nodding sagely—are therefore barred from applying for jobs is a society that loses and wastes talent?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he does not speak only for people aged 50 or 55; he speaks for the nation. It is in the nation's interest to make ageism a thing of the past.
Sally Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said,
Age discrimination"—
this echoes what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said—
is a national shame and should be outlawed. Action to eliminate it is essential. The Government must introduce legislation and not hide behind rhetoric.
I hope that the Minister will do just that and not hide behind rhetoric.
Earlier in the debate, I talked about my own experience, in which I, too, have found that older people offer not only maturity, but a calming influence. When my mother wants to irritate me, she comes up with German proverbs. I do not know why, because she was born in south Wales. When I went into business with a friend of mine, whom I have known since I was 16, she said, "Freundschaft und Brüderschaft machen keine Handelschaft." I think that that means, "Friendship and brotherhood make no businesshood." I do not think that there is a translation for "Handelschaft", but colleagues will know what I mean. Friendship and brotherhood do not necessarily make for a good business partnership.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. Does he agree that it would be helpful if businesses followed the example of our institutions of further and higher education, which, on the whole, practise sound policies in relation to this matter? They do not discriminate against, for example, older people—a fact to which, I hope my hon. Friend recognises, I can testify by virtue of my own experience. My mother, who is a lady of mature years, graduated last summer with an honours degree in English.

Mr. Fabricant: I am delighted to hear that. It was the previous Government's policy to ensure that people could be educated throughout all the ages of their lives.
I thought that I was going to have to disagree with my hon. Friend because I thought, as other hon. Members might have done, that he was about to say that institutions


of primary, secondary and higher education did not discriminate when employing teachers. My hon. Friend did not say that, but they do. The new clause would stop that.
To carry on with my story of Freundschaft and Brüderschaft, my fellow director, a friend whom I had known since the age of 16, and I squabbled like two cats in a bag. Our small company expanded into a much larger company, employing several hundred people, and indirectly more than 1,000—if this Bill had been in place, we would have been strangled at birth and gone bust, never growing at all. I realised that some members of the company felt a little uneasy when, on one occasion only, my fellow director and I had fisticuffs in a corridor. We brought in John Ball—with whom I went out last night for a drink—then aged 64, who brought calmness, stability, wisdom, insight and maturity to the company. Had I been ageist, my company probably would not have survived. Certainly my partner, Mel, and I would not have survived, because we would have beaten hell out of each other, and most of our employees would probably have left. Older people have a lot to offer.
In principle, the new clause is good. However, two matters bother me. I am not exactly sure how the new clause would be implemented. I note that it would require secondary legislation. I am not convinced that secondary legislation is a good thing. More and more legislation goes Upstairs and is passed almost on the nod. Journalists say that the House is being supplanted by Whitehall, and I believe that the Chamber is being supplanted by secondary legislation. I am a little concerned that, if the new clause were passed, it might leave a number of options open.
My other concern relates simply to promotion and promotion prospects. If the new clause were law, could an employee who could not obtain promotion claim that that was due to ageism? That needs clarification.
I must tell my Whip that, in the event of a Division, because of my concerns I will not vote for the new clause, but I shall abstain. I hope that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who has listened carefully, recognises that there is demographic time bomb, that the status quo is not an option and that, as the right hon. Member for Makerfield made promises two, three or four times immediately before the general election, the Minister has a moral obligation to support the new clause. He also has an obligation to support the new clause for the sake of British industry and the greater benefit of the nation.

9 pm

Mr. David Borrow: The issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), particularly on new clauses 4 and 5, fit fully into the Government's policy. They are, and should be, the Government's objectives. It is unfortunate that these areas of discrimination are not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, which sponsors the Bill. I shall be seeking some undertakings from Ministers.
I want to deal particularly with discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation. There have been major changes in the past 10 or 15 years. My judgment is that, if members of the public were asked

whether people should be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, the overwhelming majority would say that it was wrong to discriminate.
I remember the arguments that were advanced when organisations introduced equal opportunity policies. For a number of years, I was a member of Preston borough council, and, as chair of the equal opportunities committee, I was involved in the introduction of equal opportunities employment policy, which included provisions against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. When we discussed that issue 10 years ago, it caused a major row, and there was a big fuss about it. A few years later, when I was the chief officer of a tribunal, I drew up an equal opportunities policy, which included provisions on sexual orientation. It went through the annual meeting of the tribunal on the nod, and was accepted as what a good employer should do.
We must recognise the fact that, in the past 10 or 15 years, many organisations in the public and private sectors have introduced policies to outlaw discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. In that area, therefore, we are clearly moving with the grain.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the case of the two women who worked for the railways and the discrimination in that organisation. I am sure that he is aware that similar discrimination exists in the House. We cannot say that we have good employment policies in those respects.
If it is not possible to use the Bill as the vehicle for the Government's policy objectives, I shall seek from Ministers an undertaking to use their powers to influence the public sector. It is wrong for any employee in the public sector to face discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation. They are employed and paid to do a job for the public, and they should not face any discrimination.
I realise that legislation may be required to introduce regulations for the private sector, but I would look to the Government to introduce a code of best practice before doing so.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should set an example? In their employment practices, they must ensure that there is no discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation, and that no one in a profession is, by the nature of his or her employment, precluded from applying for promotion or advancement within that profession because of such discrimination.

Mr. Borrow: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should set an example.
If there is a message that I want to convey to the House, it is with respect to new clause 5. The majority of homosexual men and women in employment do not need to bring their sexuality to the notice of their employers when they are taken on as employees. It gives some comfort to homosexual men and women to know that the organisation that employs them has a policy that will not discriminate against them, and that will give them some safeguards against bullying and discrimination in their employment. That is the most important aspect of new clause 5.
I realise that Ministers have a problem with this, but I hope that the Minister's winding-up speech will be positive, and that, if the Government are not able to


incorporate the new clauses at this stage, they will undertake to tackle the issues seriously between now and the next general election.

Mr. Brady: This has been an interesting debate, to which I shall contribute briefly, concentrating on new clause 4.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the way in which he has presented his arguments, tonight and in Committee. I especially congratulate him on his avoidance tonight of one of the great traps, into which I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) fell. I refer to the "demographic time bomb" argument. There is no danger of a falling out between my hon. Friend and me in that regard, although I did rather lose track of the German proverbs.

Mr. Fabricant: So did Hansard.

Mr. Brady: No doubt, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's mother will provide any guidance that is necessary.
I think that arguments based on demographic time bombs, skill shortages and the supposed need to tackle the issues because of perceived constraints on the labour market are entirely spurious. If companies cannot find employees, from whatever age group, they will naturally look elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why it is unnecessary to legislate in this regard. As the constraints on the labour market increase, along with shortages of labour and of skills among certain groups that may currently be benefiting in employment terms, companies will have no option but to look to older workers.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend—I say "hon. Friend" advisedly—for giving way to me.
I, too, am a great believer in market forces, and I hate to intervene, not on my hon. Friend but in the free market. I fear, however, that the position is simply not as my hon. Friend has described it. Shortages occur from time to time, in connection with not just age but skill, and, for all sorts of reasons—illogically—companies do not take up the opportunities that are available. There is a lag. Although I think that by 2035 or 2040 the situation may be forced to rectify itself, I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's belief in the free market: I think that it will need a gentle nudge to overcome human prejudice.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I could agree with a gentle nudge, but I fear that the new clause may constitute rather more than that. I fear that it may cause significant problems for employers and, potentially, for employees.
Let me return briefly to a point that I tried to make in an intervention on the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which I think is also relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. I admitted to ageism in my practice of choosing to employ older workers, and the hon. Gentleman admitted to having done the same. According to my reading of the new clause, his conduct would be prohibited, because the new clause seeks not only to make it impossible to discriminate on the grounds of someone's being older, but to make it impossible to discriminate on grounds of age. A good example is the

policy of B and Q, which for many years has voluntarily exercised a policy of employing older workers because it regards them as loyal, steadfast and reliable. That policy in itself would be prohibited if the new clause were adopted.
I strongly believe that employers should take an enlightened view. I think that they should employ people on the basis of merit, regardless of whether they consider them to be too young or too old. It is important that employers move in that direction. A gentle nudge may be required, perhaps through a code of practice—indeed, some exhortation may be appropriate—but some problems could arise from the legislative approach of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, and he needs to deal with them.
I have mentioned companies that choose to employ older workers, sometimes for good reasons in particular circumstances. There may also be instances where the age of an employee is relevant. One could imagine instances where particular physical work needed particular physical strength or resilience, which may favour younger employees. In the acting profession, it may be appropriate to employ a young actress rather than an old, although glamorous actress in a particular role. In the modelling profession—I do not wish to dwell on the issue because the hon. Member for Eastleigh will become over-excited—

Mr. Chidgey: I am not getting over-excited. It is just that I suddenly got a flash of the possible history of the acting profession. Perhaps if we had followed the views of the hon. Gentleman, women would still be prohibited by law from appearing on the stage in this country.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is leading me more into the territory of new clause 5, which I am not speaking to, and new clause 6, but he did not deal with those issues in his remarks on new clause 4. Perhaps he will return to the matter later in our proceedings.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a proprietor of a fitness or health club opted for a younger rather than an older candidate when choosing between different candidates of otherwise equal merits, he should not be chastised in law for so doing?

Mr. Brady: I have not given great thought to the merits of that case. As a matter of principle, the difficulties that are thrown up by the legislative approach in new clause 4 would intrude into many areas, and that may be one of them. Equally, in retail sectors—perhaps fashion—where products are being sold to younger people, it is clearly the practice to employ younger people; frequently, people working in that sector are younger. Employers choose to take on young people in shops that seek to sell goods to young people.

Mr. Fabricant: There is a bit of stereotyping going on about not only age and sexuality, but the type of jobs that older people can do. In my speech earlier, I mentioned my partner, Mel. He subsequently left the company that I founded and collected his money. He then decided that he was getting bored and became a tennis coach; he is the same age as me: 48. He went through a course with the


Lawn Tennis Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not implying that Mel could not do something physical at the age of 48.

Mr. Brady: I am sure that there are many physical things that one could do at the age of 48; I had not sought to imply that there were not. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) sought to imply that, but the fact that a man of 48 can work as a tennis coach suggests that such discrimination is not happening and that legislation is unnecessary.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is probably not aware that I am a qualified tennis coach and that I received worthwhile instruction in the playing of tennis from a relatively elderly man, who was an exceptionally good coach, so I do not suggest that an older person cannot be a good coach. My point, which is a serious one, is simply that someone who runs such a club, or conducts a course in relation to which qualified people are needed, should be entitled to exercise his judgment as to what factors are material in the choice.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying his views, and I suspect that there is not that much distance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on the point.
It is important to deal with situations where someone might be a good candidate—apart from the fact that he or she is approaching retirement age and there would be insufficient time for training. I have no difficulty with the spirit of the new clause, but the hon. Member for Eastleigh has not addressed those factors.
In the City, certain types of employment are appropriate to younger, rather than older, people. In such situations, I would be regarded as too old for many jobs.

Miss Kirkbride: Surely not.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of disbelief, but in some City occupations it is considered that someone aged 30 is too old and ought to move on to other occupations in the financial sector. In addition, there may be difficulties with military and police recruitment, where age limits are regularly imposed.
Even the Government's own minimum wage regulations accept the principle of different pay according to different ages. I can understand the embarrassment of Ministers at the possibility that they will be invited to agree to new clause 4, which may be in accordance with their manifesto pledge but which will directly contradict earlier legislation implemented by the Department. With good will on both sides, some arrangement could be made to remove the Government from a difficult situation of their own making.
I endorse the spirit behind the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but I fear that the direct approach that he is advocating is not entirely appropriate and will cause difficulties. However, I commend him for his efforts.

Mr. Cotter: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Discrimination must be outlawed firmly; surely no one could disagree with that contention. In Committee, it became clear that many accepted that unfairness was intolerable. However, on age discrimination—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has mentioned—we have had an about-turn from the Government.
Instead of having legislation—as they promised before the election—the Government have backed away with the weaker alternative of a code of practice; something that many, including John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, believe will not be effective.
Legislative difficulty is no excuse in such a matter. On that premise, we would still have slavery in this country. Equally, we would not have passed race and sex discrimination legislation. These matters are difficult to address, but we have proved that they can be addressed. In this case, they must be addressed. The issue will not go away, and action will have to be taken sooner or later.
I do not wish to be accused of supporting the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant); it would damage my reputation with the Liberal Democrats. However, reference has been made to the demographic time bomb. By 2000, 35 per cent. of the labour force will be 45 or over. By 2010, it will be 40 per cent. A recent survey in The Sunday Telegraph found that, 20 years ago, the employment rate among 55 to 64-year-olds was 84 per cent; it is now down to 58 per cent. The situation is scandalous, and in general people accept that there is a problem.
It is the qualifications and suitability for a job that matter, whether a person is young or old. There have been two recent examples of attempts to legislate on the subject, the first of which was the Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham). It was not adopted.
More recently, last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) promoted a short Bill entitled the Age (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill. In presenting it, my right hon. Friend said:
Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted.
He was talking about older people who have been trained and yet are still not employed.
There is an Act in place in the United States. As my right hon. Friend said:
job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses"—
in factories that would be called redundancy—

Mr. Bermingham: Downsizing.

Mr. Cotter: I thank the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend said that
job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country". —[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 175–76]
In Britain, however, downsizing usually involved older people.
Age discrimination gives rise to tremendous costs. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that it costs this country £26 billion a year.
In The Guardian of 18 March, Barbara Nemeth described what happened last year when she was put out to grass by a social work organisation that prided itself on its human resources. She had been involved in child protection, in which accumulated experience is surely of value; yet, despite being an experienced occupational therapist and family therapist, she was turned out of work. Barbara Nemeth wrote that her manager had wanted to keep her, but higher management insisted she had to go on the grounds of her age.
Canada provides another example, which covers all the—

Mr. Bermingham: It is estimated that, in 40 or 50 years, people will live to 130. Indeed, my son told me the other day that he was looking forward to his 140th birthday, which gave me a heart attack on the spot. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with such projected longevity, it is time that we rethought all our employment policies so as not to waste the experience and knowledge that comes with age?

Mr. Cotter: I more than agree.
In some Canadian provinces, one's date of birth is classed as personal and private information. Similarly, one's religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation are not considered relevant to employability. In the interests of brevity, I shall say no more about that aspect, but I must tell the Government that the issue will not be lost, but will be brought up more and more. The Liberal Democrats will certainly want to draw attention to it.
New clause 5 is about sexual orientation. This is not the first time that such a clause has come before Parliament. In June 1998, Baroness Turner introduced a Bill in the other place, and Baroness Blackstone, on behalf of the Government, said that they supported the principle but were waiting for a report from the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC reported more than four months ago, recommending that
there should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men.
The Government were waiting for that report; it is now in front of them.
The Government have clarified the position. In Standing Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry said that they were committed to considering the report's recommendations, and added that it was too early to be clear whether legislation would be appropriate. Several other statements made in Committee would support my case.
Let me turn to sexual orientation. A recent Stonewall survey found that 48 per cent. of respondents had experienced harassment at work from which they had no legal protection. That is a sorry tale. A survey in 1995 found that one employer in three was less likely to employ an individual whom he knew to be lesbian or gay. Official tolerance of such discrimination is an affront to civilised values. I was shocked when, in preparing for debate on this issue, I learned for the first time that such discrimination existed.
The Government must not tiptoe around the sensibilities of bigoted employers. They must recognise that hard working and talented individuals are open to

discrimination. They should not have to wait further for long-overdue employment protection. The legal situation is a ludicrous mess which should be cleared up. The Government have ratified the International Labour Organisation's convention 111 on discrimination. They have therefore undertaken to
declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote … equality of opportunity and treatment … with a view to eliminating discrimination.
The Government commendably included provisions on this matter in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, they have done nothing to create employment rights for lesbians and gay men in England. I could say much more and give many more examples, but as it is late, I simply urge the Government to accept our new clause. There is absolutely no reason why they should not.

Dr. Evan Harris: The new clause would outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I was proud to sponsor Baroness Turner's Bill when it came to the House of Commons during the previous session of Parliament, although the pressure on private Members' time meant that it was not afforded a Second Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the way in which he introduced the new clause, and to others who have spoken tonight and in Committee, including Labour Members.
A lot of work has been done by Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights—LAGER—to battle against the vacuum of legal protection for lesbians and gays. In addition, Stonewall has been active, and I pay tribute to that organisation and thank it for its briefing on this matter.
People's lives are being destroyed all the time. I read recently of the teacher, Shirley Pearce, who took her case to an employment tribunal. Having taught for 20 years in a school, she was outed as a lesbian and was harassed by her pupils. She was not given adequate protection by the school, but the employment tribunal was unable to rule because it was deemed that a lack of protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation did not constitute sexual discrimination.
Time and again there is a problem when people seek to use sex discrimination laws for protection but find that the courts cannot provide it. There is a legal argument for plugging the gap. The cases that come to court require courage from those concerned, as their cases are dealt with very publicly. I am sure that the cases that we know about are only the tip of the iceberg.
I see no difference in terms of human rights, and little practical difference, between discrimination against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation and discrimination against someone on the grounds of gender or race. We see things happening in employment every week that would be deemed intolerant if they were directed against people who were Jewish or black. This Government and previous Governments have acted in such cases, and I can see no reason why they cannot act now.
9.30 pm
Stonewall has launched an Equality 2000 campaign. It requires various campaign objectives to be met in order


that lesbians and gay men enter the new millennium as free and equal citizens. One of those objectives was equal protection from discrimination in the work place. In December 1997 I was privileged to attend a Stonewall lecture given by the eminent human rights barrister, Peter Duffy QC, who tragically died some weeks ago. He pioneered the promotion of lesbian and gay rights in the European courts. In a superb lecture, he was optimistic that the European courts would find a way to provide equal rights for lesbians and gay men in employment law in this country, with especial regard to the Grant case and the Perkins case. He lived to see those hopes dashed, but there was cause for optimism at the time of his death that this Parliament will provide employment rights for lesbians and gay men. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that such rights are available in this Parliament, because in that way they could deliver their manifesto commitment to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. That should happen before the next general election.
In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government have consulted on the issue of age discrimination and that they have made proposals for codes of practice. However, it is hard to see that any progress has been made in the first two years of this Government on the possibly more significant case—it is difficult to rank such things—of discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. I have seen nothing from the Department for Education and Employment, which could take the lead in such matters, and the outside world is moving ahead of the Government. Before I was elected to Parliament, I steered through the council of the British Medical Association a wide-ranging equality provision that would outlaw discrimination in the medical profession on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is a model for others. The public and private sectors are now waiting for the Government to act; they have an excellent opportunity to do so tonight.
During consideration of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill in June 1998, Baroness Blackstone reminded the other place that the White Paper "Fairness at Work" proposed
reducing to one year the length of time which an employee must be in work before gaining protection from unfair dismissal. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which an industrial tribunal would find sexual orientation fair grounds for dismissal".
That is not the case. People are still being sacked on the basis of their sexual orientation in cases in which, if the dismissal was based on grounds of gender, it would clearly be sexual discrimination; and if the dismissal was on grounds other than sexual orientation, there would be a case for unfair dismissal. Baroness Blackstone added that the Government were committed to giving serious consideration to the issues raised by the Bill.
Consideration is all very well, but people are anxious to see action and the new clause provides an opportunity for the Government to act. Baroness Blackstone added that she looked forward—as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) said—to the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that she hoped that Baroness Turner would accept that it was reasonable to await the final views of the specialist equal opportunities body. It reported four months ago that there

is a need for protection in the law—which could be achieved if the Government were to accept new clause 5. She also said:
the Government are committed to looking seriously at the issues raised in the context of the wider review of equality legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 655–57.]
Nearly a year later, we have still to find out what those sentiments mean. We hear much about thinking seriously and consideration but there is no legislative action.
It is not only a question of unfair dismissal. Under the Bill, if one has been employed for more than a year, one can claim that dismissal is unlawful, but there is also discrimination in recruitment and promotion. That is not illegal if based on the grounds of sexual orientation and difficult to bring to court because it is difficult to prove why one has not been employed.
There is also the problem of harassment on the ground of sexual orientation and the failure to deal with it. The Minister may know the case of Burman v. Trevor Page, in which the employer dismissed the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrators. That was thought fair. He will know of other cases that I do not have time to expound. I hope that he recognises that the Government's record leaves a lot to be desired.
In passing another Act that dealt with equal rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government rejected an amendment to put sexual orientation specifically into the provision relating to article 14 for British courts to use. No action has been taken on discrimination in the armed forces, other than an open-ended review. The time is now right. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and deliver equal rights tonight.

Mr. Bermingham: I will not be long. I have listened to repetitive speeches that have all missed the point. No hon. Member would discriminate, or permit or support discrimination, on the basis of sexual orientation. We have said that time and again. Let us say loud and clear that we do not tolerate such behaviour. The Government seek to emphasise that point in the legislation. Why come back to it time and again unless we want to make fallacious points?

Mr. Mike Hancock: What?

Mr. Bermingham: Fallacious points. I can spell it for the hon. Gentleman if he wants.
Should we not make an advance? We live in a continually ageing population. I am one of them, being not far short of 60. I do not want to be put on the scrap heap when I am 60, 65 or 70. If I retain my faculties, I hope that I will still have something to offer. Ageism is a matter of concern not only to me but to the thousands of my constituents who lost their jobs when they were 45 under the Thatcher Government, who told them that they were no use to society and put them on the scrap heap. They are now 65 and still have 20 years to go but have no pensions, support or anything else. They were destroyed by a philosophy that said people were good if they were young. The flash boys in the City grabbed their money.
As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, at 37 he is too old for the City. He is not prepared to do 24 hours a day, drink champagne and


cream off everyone. That is what the City of London did in the 18 years during which we had to tolerate the destruction of our industrial society.
We have to face up to the reality of society and where we are going. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may laugh, but in days yet to come, there is a chance, regrettably, that he might make 110, according to the medical evidence now available. Members of Parliament could serve for 80 years.

Mr. Bercow: Do not tempt me.

Mr. Bermingham: Please God.
Our society must face the fact that people are living longer. To support that society, we must find useful employment for those who pass the age of 65 and still want to work. There is a vast number of people in that category. In considering discrimination, let us think not only about sexual orientation, but about ageism and the restrictive practices that still deny, in certain professions, the right of promotion to people in particular sectors. That happens in government and elsewhere.
This is a far more serious problem than people realise. If we are to have a society that is worth while, every person must have a right to contribute, regardless of age, sex or colour. That is what we should aim for. That is where I think that the Bill is heading, but I warn Ministers that they are not going far enough yet.

Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief. This has been an interesting and eloquent debate, very well introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). It reflected a number of views. I made a speech on the matter in Standing Committee and I have little to add except for some brief comments.
All hon. Members who have spoken are in principle in favour of selection for employment on the basis that the person is the most suitable to do the job. That was well expressed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). It is perhaps a more positive way of looking at the matter than in terms of discrimination against people. The difficulty with which this Government and successive Governments have wrestled is finding the best way of meeting the general aspiration, whether by codes of practice, legislation or a mixture of the two. It is not always easy.
To return to my exchange with the hon. Member for Eastleigh on the criteria that he set out in introducing the new clause, I still have some concerns, as does the CBI, about the practical possibilities of preventing ageism, especially in promotions. There may be a perfectly good reason for not advancing the employment of a young person of 25, such as experience, ability to cope under pressure and so forth. It is not always easy to articulate such reasons in a formal policy, especially for a smaller business that does not have a sophisticated human resources department. It may be very easy, if we go down the legislative route, to promote, as the CBI warned, continual trouble with definitions and litigation.
As for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I draw to the attention of the House the distinction between discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation and concerns that hon. Members clearly have about, for example, certain practices and the age of consent for them. Those things should be clearly

distinguished. I am conscious that on the latter matter there are widely held and intensely felt differences of view which should not be allowed to intrude into the debate about employment policy.
I remind the House that, as some people feel strongly on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual practice, that is likely to affect their attitude to employment, perhaps irrationally, in a way that would not necessarily apply to some other forms of discrimination. However, that is, in a sense, speculative.
It is for the Government to decide what they need to do about the matter. I have given some little study to the Under-Secretary's response to our debate in Standing Committee. Having reflected on it, it is clear to me that he will have to grasp a few nettles. The ghost of Sir Humphrey has been stalking the Standing Committee. On ageism, he said:
That is why the Government are taking a measured approach, taking forward a range of initiatives that will help older people and bring cultural change, and using the lessons learned from those initiatives to inform future plans.
I think that that is an elegant piece of Whitehall-speak for, "It is all rather painful." In exactly the same context, and taking up a quotation that has already been given to the House, the Under-Secretary said of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which had proposed specific legal protection for lesbians and gay men:
We remain committed to considering that, and the EOC's other recommendations, carefully. However, it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 578–80.]
We know from lobbying material presented to us that there is some concern that the Government are making haste not slowly but imperceptibly. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister told us what the Government proposed to do in these difficult areas of discrimination and gave us a sense that they were coming to grips with these difficult problems.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): We have had an important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made important points and articulated powerfully held views. I am wholly sympathetic to the concerns that prompted the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) to table the new clauses. He outlined them cogently and gave some poignant examples.
Our manifesto commitment has been referred to many times this evening. I am happy to stand by it and to remind the House that we pledged:
We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists.
That remains our position. It is precisely because we share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and because we are committed to tackling discrimination that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is taking action to combat unfair age discrimination.
The Government are committed to promoting age diversity, and tackling age discrimination in employment is an essential element in our strategy of building a country in which everyone—young and old alike—can play their full part, as my hon. Friend the Member for


St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out so eloquently. From an extensive consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, however, it was clear that effective legislation to tackle age discrimination raised complex issues. For example, is the retirement age itself discriminatory? Some hon. Members spoke of the value and commitment that older workers can bring to the workplace, and I can only endorse that. However, an insistence on maturity of approach and experience might be seen as at least indirectly discriminatory. Those are not straightforward questions; they need to be tackled in a measured way, and I make no apology for saying that.
Changing the culture is the key point that we must address. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has already reminded the House, I said that in Committee and I stand by it. Employers need to believe in the value of people whatever their age. Employers need to recognise that unjustified age discrimination is unjust; it is irrational and damaging, not only to the individuals who are discriminated against, but to the businesses in which they work. The culture needs to be changed. The only question is how, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) pointed out.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister says that the culture needs to be changed. Would he be surprised to learn that, in the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said just that, and would he be equally surprised to learn that, in opposition, his colleagues—including the present Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—argued that my right hon. Friend was wrong and that a Labour Government would introduce age legislation?

Mr. Wills: I should not be altogether surprised by anything said by the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that we have to change the culture, and we are setting out to do so.
We realise that legislation is not always a solution. That point has already been made, but I want to make it clear: legislation is not always a solution, but sometimes it can be. Sometimes it must be a solution, but not always. In this case, the evidence is mixed. The French and Spanish already have legislation against ageism, but their older worker employment rate is lower than ours. The Canadians have age discrimination legislation too—

Mr. Chidgey: rose—

Mr. Wills: If I can finish the point, perhaps it will be clear to the hon. Gentleman.
The Canadians also have such legislation, but the economic inactivity rate among Canadians aged between 55 and 64 is higher than in this country. It is a complex matter and the lessons are not clear. The results of the year-long consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities point to a non-statutory code of practice as the best immediate way to bring about that change in culture. That is why we shall launch such

a code in May, backed up by detailed guidance and illustrative case studies. The code has been drawn up with the involvement of many key players from both sides of industry and from voluntary bodies active in the field, such as Age Concern.
We believe that the code will command widespread support. To help the evaluation process and to ensure a fully informed debate, we are already carrying out a baseline survey of employers and older people. In addition, we shall publish, every June, key indicators showing the position of older workers in the labour market. We shall also carry out a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the code by February 2001, which will help to inform our plans for future legislation. I hope that that will reassure those hon. Members who need reassurance on that subject.
New clause 5 deals with discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I acknowledged in Committee, there is a gap in the protection we offer some individuals compared with the law on sex, race and disability discrimination. We are appalled by the discrimination that is experienced by some gay men and lesbians; it is a disgrace to any decent and civilised society. I have some personal experience of that: a good colleague and friend with whom I worked in the 1970s was driven out of his profession in the 1980s because he was gay. The employer lost a talented, skilled and motivated employee and my friend lost a profession he loved. Such discrimination is disgraceful and the DTI takes the issue extremely seriously. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a meeting with Stonewall to discuss such issues; the meeting was constructive and we intend to continue that positive dialogue.
However, it has already been pointed out several times this evening that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has primary responsibility for tackling discrimination in employment. In November last year, the Equal Opportunities Commission presented several recommendations to my right hon. Friend, following a review of sex discrimination legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend is studying the EOC' s recommendations carefully, and I do not want to pre-empt those conclusions today. At this stage, I simply remind the House of our manifesto commitment:
We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister not realise that earlier today, there was a statement, accompanied by a glossy brochure, all about joined-up government? If a legislative opportunity presents itself to do something about a problem, the fact that another Department has the lead should not prevent Ministers from taking advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. Wills: We have made our attitude toward unjustifiable discrimination extremely clear; ending such discrimination is a manifesto commitment and we shall deliver on that, just as we deliver on all our manifesto commitments.
In new clause 6, the hon. Member for Eastleigh urges on the Government a power to prohibit discrimination on whatever basis the Secretary of State may specify in


regulations. Although I sympathise with the instincts that led the hon. Gentleman to table that proposal, it is puzzling to have such a broad and unfocused power proposed, especially when attempts were made in Committee to criticise the Government for taking far more specific powers where we were clear about what they would be used for.
As I said, discrimination in employment is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; however, the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for some aspects of that—for example, discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. If Opposition Members have in mind some further specific problems that are not already under consideration and in respect of which there is clear evidence that individuals are suffering unjustified discrimination in employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I would be happy to consider them. However, we do not want to have the sort of sweeping powers proposed in new clause 6.
If there are specific problems of discrimination, such as those addressed by new clauses 4 and 5 or relating to protections for whistleblowers, the proper approach is that we should debate them, consider the policy options and then decide whether to act and, if we decide to do so, how to act. Legislation is not the only option, as we have shown in respect of age discrimination, although it might be appropriate, as we believe it is in respect of whistleblowers.

Dr. Harris: Does the Minister understand that, every time he talks about how appalling and disgraceful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is, it brings into sharp relief his Department's refusal to take this legislative opportunity to tackle it? The Minister has not said what is wrong with this legislation compared with future legislation that may emanate from another Department. There is an opportunity tonight to remedy the situation. Why will he not take it?

Mr. Wills: The Equal Opportunities Commission has provided detailed recommendations on precisely those issues. We owe it to that body and to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has primary responsibility for these matters—

Mr. Borrow: rose—

Mr. Wills: I shall address the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and then I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is addressing these matters, and I do not intend to pre-empt his conclusions tonight. I am sorry, but I have made my position clear.

Mr. Borrow: I recognise my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving assurances on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he conveys to the Secretary of State the strong feeling expressed in the Chamber this evening that the matter must not be allowed to drag on? Many Labour Members will expect the Department for Education and Employment to move on the issue very quickly.

Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so passionately and so well. I assure him that I

will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the views that hon. Members have expressed so powerfully tonight. I shall also convey the real sense of urgency that has been communicated.
As to new clause 6, we believe that it would be wrong to adopt such sweeping and draconian powers without the slightest idea of how they might be used. That would not set a good precedent. Discrimination is a serious matter which we take seriously, but I have already said, with genuine regret, that we cannot support new clauses 4 and 5 because we have announced our policy on the former and the latter needs further consideration. While I sympathise with the good intentions that undoubtedly lie behind its tabling, 1 am afraid that I cannot support new clause 6 for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Chidgey: This has been a good debate to which many hon. Members have made valuable and thoughtful contributions. Sadly, the end was not as good as the middle—or perhaps even the beginning. The Government are in a fix; they have been caught out. The Government promised the electorate that they would provide employment rights through legislation, but they have not even begun to consult in some areas. The Government have not begun to consider the issues, let alone produce a famous code of practice.
The Minister's contribution has left me feeling rather depressed and sad. He went on at length about the importance of commitment. He professed to be very upset, and almost cried as he addressed us. However, he must understand that saying something is not the same as doing it. I have yet to see any sign that this Government—

Mr. Andrew Miller: rose—

Mr. Chidgey: I will not give way. I have had just about enough.
I have listened to the debate for five hours, and the Government have made no promises that even faintly resemble the commitments that they set out in their election manifesto—let alone the comments that they made in opposition. It is a disgrace that Labour Members should change their position so rapidly after coming to power. They wonder why, having done nothing in this area for two years, there is so much anger on these Benches and throughout the community that they are supposed to represent. I shall press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 318.

Division No.134]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baker, Norman
Hancock, Mike


Beggs, Roy
Harris, Dr Evan


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Breed, Colin
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Chidgey, David
Llwyd, Ellyn


Dafis, Cynog
Moore, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)






Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew



Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Wallace, James
Mr. Brian Cotter and Sir Robert Smith


Welsh, Andrew





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Austin, John
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Beard, Nigel
Dobbin, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Donohoe, Brian H


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Berry, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Best, Harold
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Fisher, Mark


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buck, Ms Karen
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howells, Dr Kim





Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Osborne, Ms Sandra


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pickthall, Colin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pollard, Kerry


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brenfford & Isleworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNamara, Kevin
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWilliam, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Snape, Peter


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stoate. Dr Howard


Miller, Andrew
Stott. Roger


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Sutcliffe, Gerry






Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
White, Brian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy



Todd Mark
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Touhig Don
Wills, Michael



Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Truswell, Paul
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wray, James


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr. David Hanson and Mrs. Anne McGuire.


Walley, Ms Joan

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Relations Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

New Clause 5

DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION

'—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.
(2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

(a) the offer or refusal of employment;
(b) the termination of employment;
(c) terms and conditions of employment;
(d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;
(e) promotion and career progression.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

(a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;
(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;
(c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

(4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 313.

Division No. 135]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Baker, Norman
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
Moore, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Rendel, David


Breed, Colin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Dafis, Cynog
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wallace, James


Fearn, Ronnie
Welsh, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dr. Evan Harris and Sir Robert Smith.


Kirkwood, Archy





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Colman, Tony


Banks, Tony
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cummings, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darvill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dawson, Hilton


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Butler, Mrs Christine
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Fyfe, Maria


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clapham, Michael
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen






Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McLeish, Henry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Home Robertson, John
Merron, Gillian


Hood, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mitchell, Austin


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne. Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pollard. Kerry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kingham, Ms Tess
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


Macdonald, Calum
Sawford, Phil


McDonnell, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Shaw, Jonathan


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Todd, Mark


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Snape, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Soley, Clive
Vis, Dr Rudi


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walley, Ms Joan


Spellar, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wareing, Robert N


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Watts, David


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stevenson, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stott, Roger
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Mike



Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wray, James


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Tipping, Paddy

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

STRIKES TO ACHIEVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS NOT PROTECTED FROM LEGAL ACTION

'After section 225 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 insert—
225A. An act is not protected if the reason, or one of the main reasons, for which it is done is that an employer has refused to recognise to any extent a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.".'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—
Assessment of working days lost as a result of Act—
'.—The Secretary of State shall prepare and present to Parliament annually an assessment of the total number of working days lost owing to industrial action in the previous calendar year, with particular reference to action arising in connection with recognition disputes between employers and trade unions.
(2) If at any time it appears to him that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has exceeded five million in any one year, or is likely to do so in the current year, he may make an Order suspending all or part of the provisions of this Act.
(3) No Order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Boswell: It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that I am moving new clause 7 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will thereafter speak to new clause 10. We are co-signatories to both new clauses.
New clause 7 is a small provision, but there is an important point of principle that has exercised, among others, the Engineering Employers Federation, which has written to us on the matter. The new clause would remove the immunity available to actions in tort from trade unions if they sought to take industrial action to secure collective bargaining rights.
Ministers and others who are experts in this area will be familiar with the concepts of part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute are broadly protected under section 219, but there are a number of exclusions from protection beginning at section 222. New clause 7 would insert a further exclusion.
The argument for this measure is simple. If the Government are bent on bestowing collective bargaining rights or a procedure to secure collective bargaining rights through statute, we fail to see why there is a need for a parallel protection for trade unions seeking to achieve collective bargaining rights by taking industrial action. Why should both routes be open? That could only be an invitation for industrial action to continue, when the right course would be negotiation—ideally—or, if necessary, for the Government to avail themselves of their own proposals in schedule 1.
I see only one defence, or lacuna. Interestingly and irrationally, in view of the Secretary of State's earlier suggestion that the legislation constituted a seamless web, the Government have provided that in a firm employing 20 or fewer people there should be no collective bargaining rights. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House that it would be all right for members of a labour force that size to strike to secure their rights, whereas employees of a firm employing more people could adopt the statutory route; but I think that the essential principle remains. We do not want to encourage people to strike when they already have recourse to the law.

Mr. Redwood: I urge the Government to think again about disrupting industrial relations in our country. Many hon. Members who are present tonight will recall the bitter disputes that characterised the 1960s and 70s. They will remember that such disputes took place during periods of Conservative, Labour and Labour-Liberal government, and that the Labour-Liberal coalition elected in the 1970s to control strikes presided over some of the worst years of strike and turmoil in our country's history. They will agree that the last thing that we wish to do is return to any of that.
I remind the Government that it took Conservative Administrations led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher many years to introduce enough changes to the inherited industrial relations legislation to solve the problem. The strike record of the early 1980s was better than that of the worst years of the 1970s, but it was not nearly good enough, and it in turn was marred by the year of the miners' dispute.
After 1985, when the main part of the reforms finally materialised, we transformed ourselves into a country with relatively few strikes and relatively few days lost. Indeed, in the 1990s, under the Conservative Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), we achieved a record second to none in Europe—a proud record compared with that of any of our major competitors in the world. I well

remember businesses around the world saying some years earlier that they had no intention of coming to the United Kingdom because its strike record was so bad.

Mr. Fabricant: Not only did businesses not invest in the United Kingdom, there was a brain drain in the 1970s. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members who have suddenly appeared from the Kremlin Bar to comment. They are old Labour. They cannot be expected to understand, especially as they have had a few drinks too many

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That remark should be withdrawn forthwith. It is not within the remit of the House for any hon. Member to suggest that another is participating other than with good—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be wise of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Fabricant: I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and withdraw the remark.

Mr. Redwood: As I was saying—and as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was trying to say in his intervention—we were in a parlous situation in the 1970s. Other countries and companies did not rate our industrial relations highly, and they had plenty of evidence for that from the number of days lost. It took time. Indeed, if a criticism can be levelled at the Conservative Administration who were first elected in 1979, it is that it took time for that Administration to realise how much reform was needed in industrial relations legislation to achieve the desired result of better employer-employee relations.
That Administration were cautious in the early days. I wish only that the present Government were similarly cautious when setting about reversing Conservative policies. They should have gone much more steadily and carefully. I understand the pressure that they are under from the trade unions, but would it not have been better to introduce a more modest measure to test whether the successful industrial relations record that had finally been established by 1990 under the new Conservative settlement would be damaged? Instead, the Government are blundering in. They are reversing many of the important elements of our hard-won trade union settlement. All they do is assert that there is no danger of a return to the bad old days and bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s.
The Secretary of State assures us in every way, apart from firmly on the record, that there will be no increase—or a very small increase—in strikes, that this country will not go back to the bad old ways, that it will still be one of the best locations in which to invest, that he will be able to say to visiting companies that our industrial relations record is still good and a reason why they should come here, rather than go elsewhere—[Interruption.] There are a number of sedentary interventions. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will know, I am happy to take a proper intervention if he wants to make one.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is mathematically simple that, if one decreases the


number of manufacturing jobs, one decreases the number of strikes? That was the approach that was adopted by Baroness Thatcher, from which we are seeking to recover.

Mr. Redwood: That is a futile intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is possible for there to be strikes in service sectors and in public services. Indeed, some of the worst strikes under Labour Administrations have been in the public services. As he should also know, it is the present Government who are shrinking manufacturing at an awful pace. We keep warning them not to do so, but they do not listen. Every day another factory is closed and there are more job losses.

Mr. Soames: I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the words of a cocky little barrack-room lawyer about strikes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that we should use temperate language in the House. It always helps with our proceedings. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

Mr. Soames: I withdraw the remark, "a little barrack-room lawyer".
What does my right hon. Friend think is the likely contribution of the new clause to the improved competitiveness of the British economy?

Mr. Redwood: The new clause, as I am about to explain to an impatient House of Commons, would provide some protection—not sufficient, but some—in the event of things getting out of control. I am trying to explain to the Government that their legacy is a very good one, that their experience and that of other Governments in office in the 1960s and 1970s should warn them that it is easy to lose control and to have damaging and bad strikes, and that, if they are wrong about their legislation, they will rue the day.
The strikes will become most intense in the run-up to the general election. That will be extremely damaging. It will bring back memories of how Labour lost control in the past. Therefore, in a spirit of generosity, for which I am renowned, through the new clause I offer the Government the chance to back off and to ensure that not all the legislation will apply if they start to lose control of industrial relations.
Given the lateness of the hour and the generous nature of my offer, one would have thought that the Secretary of State would leap to his feet, say that he was happy to accept the new clause, that he did not believe that more than 5 million days a year would be lost in strikes—which is the threshold in the new clause—and was happy to accept it to reassure all the listeners and viewers out there who may hear about the matter in due course, if the media allow. The Secretary of State is resolutely sitting in his seat, implying that he wishes to vote down this generous offer.
The new clause proposes that should the Secretary of State be wrong and should the number of days lost through strikes go back up to 5 million—massively higher than anything that we have experienced in the 1990s so far—it would be within his rights, without the need for new primary legislation, to suspend the parts of the legislation that were causing difficulties in industrial relations in this country.
Five million is a high threshold. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I had a good debate about how high it should go. Our generosity overcame us and we set it at 5 million. We have not seen 5 million days or more lost to strikes in this country since 1985. It was, of course, regular in the 1970s under the Labour Administration; in four of the five years from 1975 to 1979 more than 5 million days were lost to strikes. From 1980 to 1996 inclusive, there were only three years when more than 5 million days were lost to strikes—and that was three years too many.
I am pleased that there have been no such occasions for more than a decade as a result of the settlement that Conservative Administrations finally achieved in the 1980s, against the advice and bitter opposition of the Labour party, which thought that industrial relations should remain poor and that the legislation that it had left to the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was perfectly reasonable.
Why does the Bill represent a threat? Hon. Members who have read schedule 1 will have seen the incredibly complicated machinery that is being put in place to put through the Government's proposals on union recognition where there has not been agreement between the two parties in the normal way. These powers, given to the Central Arbitration Committee, are many and rather vague.
We could face disputes in which unions were squabbling over who was entitled to seek to represent the work force. We could have several unions trying to enrol sufficient members to get to the threshold to demand a ballot. There might be some difficulty in deciding which of the competing unions would be entitled, and we could get action between unions as they move to try to get control of that bargaining unit.
We could have considerable disagreements between management and the work force over what is the bargaining unit; something that is left rather vague in the Bill, giving plenty of scope for further trade disputes and for resort to expensive lawyers and court actions. The proposal for the derecognition of so-called sweetheart unions could cause difficulties in deciding whether a union qualified for such a term, and whether it was right to go ahead with its derecognition if the employers felt that it was a good union. Many of the members of the union may take the view that that was a reasonable way of proceeding for representation—[Interruption.]
If the hon. Member for Workington wishes to contribute to the debate, would he like to make an intervention? He should either make an intervention or keep quiet and listen to an important debate. He may think that it is amusing that we are facing more strikes and industrial relations disruption in this country. We do not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are two hon. Gentlemen who should be behaving themselves. It is unfair. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) should be heard.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House should recognise that good industrial relations are crucial to jobs and prosperity in our country. Have we not been through enough in the 1960s and 1970s? Did we learn nothing from that bitter experience? Did we learn nothing from the disputes in the 1980s to establish better trade union law?
Before the election, the Secretary of State and his friends in the Labour leadership were seeking to reassure people that they accepted the Conservative trade union settlement. They were even prepared to say that they thought that it was one of the better things that the Conservative Administration had done.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.

Mr. Redwood: The Labour leadership agreed that too much power had gone to the shop stewards and to disruptive forces in the 1970s, and that it was important to have a new settlement. Why are the Government now backing away from that, having won the election?

Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) saying "Rubbish." Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the new clause is presumably that he was a keen supporter of the Government under which the streets went unswept, the sick went untended, and the dead went unburied?

Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was talking about rubbish in the streets, rather than rubbish in my speech. That would have been wise of him, but as I have offered him the opportunity to intervene, it is a pity that he could not have made such a contribution in open debate.

Mr. Mike Hall: Get on with it.

Mr. Redwood: I am getting on with it—and it would be easier to get on with it if Labour Members behaved themselves instead of trying to disrupt the progress of their own legislation. They have made a good job of disrupting the Bill so far, despite the considerable help that we have given in trying to get it through. I am beginning to wonder whether we have been too generous on that score tonight, in view of the way in which the parliamentary Labour party is now behaving.
The new clause would provide an important safeguard. If the Secretary of State is right and no increase in strikes results from his legislation, he has nothing to fear from it. If he is wrong, and there is a danger of the number of strikes getting out of control, the new clause would be a welcome salvation, whereby he could avoid the delay and difficulty involved in coming back to the House to amend primary legislation. It would give him the scope to suspend the complicated and difficult features of the Bill that are likely to become a cause of trade disputes and strikes in themselves.
If hon. Members consider some of the complex detail in schedule 1, which runs from page 19 to page 56 of the Bill, they will see how much scope there is for dispute, and how much power rests in the hands of the Central Arbitration Committee. For example, paragraph 21(5) tells us:
In deciding how the ballot is to be conducted the CAC must take into account—

(a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces;
(b) costs and practicality;
(c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate."
In other words, the CAC can do whatever it likes without reference to Parliament. The House is being asked to approve legislation so loose, general and vague that it provides enormous scope for disputes, rows and strikes over its interpretation.
Similarly, paragraph 18 is very vague about how the "appropriate bargaining unit" should be defined. That gives plenty of scope for argument and dispute. Under paragraph 17, considerable judgment will have to be exercised in deciding how many workers would have to vote for compulsory negotiation by the trade union—a judgment that could easily be made badly by the CAC, and could easily be disputed. That, too, could lead to strikes and court action.
Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not pursue all the flaws and holes both in the schedule and in the other parts of the Bill that introduce it. I rest the Opposition case and plead again with the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, a junior Minister who has now been left on his own on the Treasury Bench—

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman and a few of his right hon. and hon. Friends have registered an interest with regard to the new clauses. It would be interesting for the House to know what those interests are.

Mr. Redwood: Had the hon. Lady been present at the beginning of our proceedings, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and myself explain that we had interests in companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]. Companies would be affected by all the measures in the new clauses—[Interruption.] Neither my hon. Friend nor I spoke on behalf of a particular company, nor did we table our new clauses at the request of particular companies. We are being extremely careful by saying, "Yes, we are practical people with knowledge of the business world"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Sedgemore and Mr. Campbell-Savours should know better. It is not good for the House to behave in that manner.

Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the hon. Lady reads the record of our proceedings tomorrow, she will see that what I have said is true. We have behaved very carefully, although we have no specific interests to declare in connection with the new clauses.
I sum up by urging the Government to recognise the fact that damaging the settlement that they inherited could prove more dangerous than they realise. There could be a further increase in strikes; there is already some increase in strike activity at the moment, for a variety of reasons. Damaging that settlement could put off investors, affect jobs and lead to all sorts of trouble. We are offering the Government a way out, and I hope that they will accept it.

Mr. Sayeed: When two parties enter into a contract, it is beholden on both to keep to it. New clause 7 would get rid of one of the most damaging parts of the Bill. At present, an employee who violates the terms of his contract can be dismissed. Under the Bill, that protection of the employer will go, because the employee will have the right to sue the employer and, possibly, to be


reinstated and compensated. When a contract is broken by one side, the employer should have the right to dismiss the employee. The Bill will not permit that to happen.
In relation to new clause 10, it is worth remembering that 29 million days were lost to strikes in 1979. In 1996, the number had fallen to 1.3 million days, a testament to the step-by-step approach towards industrial relations taken by the then Conservative Governments. Despite the fact that the number of people in employment increased, the number of people striking, and the frequency with which they did it, fell dramatically.
New clause 10 would set a limit much higher than 1.3 million days at which, if the number of days lost in strikes were so great as to be deeply damaging to this country, some of the Bill's more expensive proposals could be cut away, at least for a time. It is a fairly modest proposal, and any sensible Government would adopt it.

Mr. Fabricant: New clause 7 is mainly concerned with collective bargaining. The Bill is flawed. Adair Turner, writing in the Financial Times on 18 March, said:
Good employee relations should be built on trust and it is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not when there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and, indeed, the legislation proved to be unworkable.
I need not remind the House that Adair Turner is director general of the Confederation of British Industry.
The Bill is outrageous. It will bring about disruption in industrial harmony. To make matters worse, employers will be expected to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of each ballot. That is money that most small firms can ill afford, if I may echo our earlier debates on exemptions for businesses that employ fewer than 51 people.
What estimate has the Minister made of the total cost of arranging ballots and the accounts that are to be made by third parties? I appreciate that he may not have the figures to hand, but I hope that he will answer the question in his summing up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned that 29 million working days were lost in 1979. However, the numbers of strike days in other years between 1974 and 1979 were also high. In 1974, almost 15 million working days were lost; in 1975, the figure dropped to 6 million; and, in 1976, a relatively good year, it dropped to only 3 million. However, in 1977, the figure went back up to 10 million; in 1978, it was 9 million; and, in 1979, it was 29.5 million. I shall give the figure for 1990 after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).

Mr. Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for 1974, but they were conditioned by the fact that we had just had a Conservative Administration who presided over one of the most bitter strikes ever. We still remember the power failures during the miners' strike, when three working days a week were lost. The figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned may have been affected by that fact.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman only amplifies my point that the Bill would return us to those days. Even if

we discount 1974—I shall not repeat the figures for the later years, because they will be in Hansard—the figures are high. How do they compare with this decade? In 1990, almost 2 million days were lost in strikes—2 million days too many. In 1991, 761,000 days were lost; in 1992, 528,000; in 1993, 649,000; in 1994, 278,000; in 1995, 415,000; in 1996, 1.3 million; and, in 1997, 207,000. Those figures are a long way short of the 5 million figure that appears in new clause 10.
What are the Government worried about? Do they believe that 5 million working days will be lost at some time in the future, or are they aware that people such as Rupert Murdoch, whom they so confidently hope will be on their side at the next election, realise that the saving of The Times in the 1980s would have been impossible if the Bill had been in force? Does the Minister accept that? The Times was bankrupt and its workers had been on strike for six months when Rupert Murdoch took it over. He could not have done that under the Bill's provisions. This legislation is not for the future; it is going back to the past. For that reason, I support new clauses 7 and 10.

Mr. Wills: As we have heard graphically from Opposition Members, the new clauses would evoke the spectre of times past and of irresponsible trade unions. That might have worked in 1979, but it will not work now. Times have changed. People know that trade unions have changed and that industrial action is now genuinely used only as a last resort.
New clause 7 seeks to remove immunity from trade unions if they call industrial action in recognition disputes. That is a one-sided measure, and the Opposition clearly intend it to be so. It would leave employers holding all the cards. The Bill's provisions are carefully designed at every stage to provide incentives for employers and trade unions to agree sensible arrangements. We are confident that, in the vast majority of cases, they will do so, but we cannot force people to agree. Therefore, in the last resort, the possibility of industrial action must remain. The statutory procedure will provide an alternative that will lead to almost all disputes being resolved without industrial action. That, and the other measures in the Bill—notably, the right to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings, and some of the other changes which we propose on industrial action ballots—will reduce the risk of industrial action, but the right to strike is a fundamental and internationally recognised freedom.
The previous Government restricted the ability of unions to organise industrial action, especially through the complicated ballots and notice requirements, while doing nothing to protect workers once their unions had complied with those requirements. That is the reason for clause 15. It would be unfair and wrong to limit further the right to organise industrial action in the way proposed by the new clause. It is already more tightly constrained in this country than in most comparable ones. Further tightening lacks any justification. I am confident that the House will reject that tonight.
New clause 10 is a little highly flavoured, coming from the Conservatives. I, too, have some figures. The average number of working days lost each year through industrial action in the 1980s, when they were in power, was 7.2 million, nearly 50 per cent. above the level that they propose as the trigger for special action. The average number of working days lost over the past two years under


this Government is 256,000, less than 4 per cent. of the average for the 1980s. As the figures are published each month by the Office for National Statistics, with annual analysis and international comparisons, an annual report to Parliament would be redundant.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister complete his mathematics by telling us the Conservative average in the 1990s and the Labour average between 1974 and 1979?

Mr. Wills: I was merely pointing out the ulterior motive behind new clause 10. The Opposition are not really concerned to propose anything that will make a substantive difference; they are interested only in the misleading innuendo contained in new clause 10. It implies that the Bill, as they have actively stated this evening, will lead to increased industrial action. In fact, the opposite is true: the Bill will help to resolve industrial disputes without industrial action. It will promote a partnership approach. It works with the grain of industrial relations.

Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the Minister said about the Bill's likely beneficial effect on the industrial relations climate, will he confidently predict that, in each remaining year of this Parliament after its passage, there will be a reduction in the number of days lost through strikes?

Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman well knows that that is an intellectually bogus proposition, and I do not intend to engage with it. He proves my point that the new clause is a debating point that seeks to promote a spurious innuendo without basis in fact. He sat through the Committee, during which at every point it was driven home to him that the Bill was based on a partnership approach. He still has not got the message, but, no doubt, in time he will.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wills: I would like to make some progress, as it is nearly 11 pm.
It is interesting that none of the seven pieces of employment legislation that the Conservative party passed while in power contained provisions such as those proposed by the new clause. If they believed in the need for such measures, why did they not use one of those pieces of legislation to propose them? That makes my point. The new clauses are futile attempts to resurrect ghosts from the past. The world has moved on, but the Conservatives have not noticed. If they insist on pressing the new clauses, those of us who live in the real world will go happily into the Lobby to oppose them.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Bill lead to a fall or a rise in the number of strikes in the remaining years of this Parliament?

Mr. Wills: I had finished, but I am happy to answer that point. I confidently predict that the Bill will underpin a spirit of partnership through legislation in the workplace. I encourage the Conservative party to vote in support of that.

Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked the Minister an

unanswerable question and, inevitably, he failed to answer it. He could not explain to the House why he was not prepared to avail himself of our modest proposal in new clause 10. He said that he did not need it, but it would have provided an insurance for him. He was asked another unanswerable question about whether the number of strikes would increase. He demurred on that as well, although he had already asserted that the number of strikes would fall as a result of the beneficial effects of his measures.
The reason why no Conservative Government found it necessary to include a clause of the type that my right hon. Friend and I have tabled was simple. We did not decide to legislate with a 37-page schedule 1 to give collective bargaining rights in the way that the Labour Government have done. With the greatest possible respect, I remind the Minister that he argued in Committee that the main flaw in the Employment Protection Act 1975 was that it contained only six clauses. I agree that the Minister has done better than that in terms of productivity. He has given us 37 pages, but I have news for him: instead of the lawyers scrapping and going to judicial review on six clauses, they will have 37 pages to go at. I make a counter-prediction to the Minister that the Bill will be not in place of strife, but a case for strife. It will cause more trouble and more dissent. We are in the business of trying to protect Ministers from their own folly.
In that context, I will give one piece of good news to the Minister. Although I am tempted to do so, I will not press new clause 7, but we wish to press new clause 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

ASSESSMENT OF WORKING DAYS LOST AS A RESULT OF ACT

'.—The Secretary of State shall prepare and present to Parliament annually an assessment of the total number of working days lost owing to industrial action in the previous calendar year, with particular reference to action arising in connection with recognition disputes between employers and trade unions.

(2) If at any time it appears to him that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has exceeded five million in any one year, or is likely to do so in the current year, he may make an Order suspending all or part of the provisions of this Act.

(3) No Order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 320.

Division No. 136]
[11.2 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beresford, Sir Paul
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Blunt, Crispin
Burns, Simon


Body, Sir Richard
Butterfill, John






Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Mains, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Gran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltempnce & Howden)
Page, Richard



Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Randall, John


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Flight, Howard
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gibb, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James 
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wells, Bowen


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Whittingdale, John


Lansley, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Wilkinson, John


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington. David
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Tim Collins and Mrs. Eleanor Laing.


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Best, Harold


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Borrow, David


Austin, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Baker, Norman
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Banks, Tony
Bradshaw, Ben


Barnes, Harry
Breed, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Battle, John
Browne, Desmond


Bayley, Hugh
Buck, Ms Karen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burden, Richard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burgon, Cohn


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benton, Joe
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bermingham, Gerald
Caborn, Richard





Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hain, Peter


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chidgey, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) 
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann 
Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David


Coaker Vernon
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey Ms Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, Iain
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ennis, Jeff 
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Etherington, Bill
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kemp, Fraser


Field, Rt Hon Frank 
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fisher, Mark 
Khabra, Piara S



Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gerrard, Neil
Livsey, Richard


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Llwyd, Ellyn


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAllion, John






McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Macdonald, Calum
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Sanders, Adrian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNamara, Kevin
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McWilliam, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Snape, Peter


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Spellar, John


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Miller, Andrew
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stunell, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trickett, Jon


O'Neill, Martin
Truswell, Paul


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pearson Ian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pendry, Tom
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pond, Chris
Watts, David


Pope, Greg
Welsh, Andrew


Pound, Stephen
White, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quinn, Lawrie
Willis, Phil


Radice, Giles
Wills, Michael


Rammell, Bill
Winnick, David


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Raynsford, Nick
Wood, Mike


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wray, James


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Roy, Frank
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. David Hanson.


Ruane, Chris

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

DUTY TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN EMPLOYMENT

—'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting employers from knowingly engaging an employee in a position where a conflict of interest could arise which might expose the employee to criminal, civil or regulatory proceedings.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide for the imposition of a fine, not exceeding level 6 on the standard scale, on a person convicted of an offence under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Brady.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brady: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to explore some of the Government's views on this matter. In Standing Committee, some Labour Members suggested that Conservative Members adopted a Scrooge-like tendency when it came to matters of industrial relations and employment rights. However, I was heartened to see the Government's seeking to assume that Scrooge mantle this evening by opposing the new clauses regarding discrimination on the basis of age and sexual orientation.
To complete the process, I thought that I would experiment by proposing a new individual employment right and employee protection in new clause 12, which would impose a duty of care on an employer not knowingly to engage a person in circumstances where he may put that person in a position of conflicted interest, particularly when some civil, criminal or regulatory proceedings could arise.
Such circumstances could arise in numerous ways. For example, a former police officer might have personal knowledge or information of a private nature about certain individuals. A person employed in the City might have prior knowledge that is relevant to his duties in managing a fund. A new employer who is familiar with the financial circumstances of a particular company might be charged with the disposal of shares in that company.
I do not seek to introduce an onerous burden in such situations. New clause 12 would give Ministers the power to bring an order into effect. I hope that it would impose the lightest possible burden because it would prohibit employment only when that would knowingly put an employee in a difficult and potentially dangerous position. My new clause recognises what many Labour Members know: there are sometimes imbalances in employment relationships. For example, an employee might be pressured—financially or by some other means—to accept a position.
Following on from the statement earlier today, as we move into an age of electronic government, an increasing amount of knowledge, information and private data may be held by Government bodies, Departments and agencies. That might cause difficulties if a person were to move into another sector of employment. For example, somebody who owns or runs a building firm might be put in charge of a public building project and of awarding contracts in that connection.
The importance of this measure in public sector terms has been thrown into sharp relief by recent events in the European Commission, where we have seen clear


evidence of fraud, corruption and nepotism. There are real pitfalls. For example, employees might be put in control of public funds and of decisions that might seriously compromise them. Another relevant instance in the context of this new clause may be the power to take action that may influence markets to the advantage of a particular individual. In that context, one might consider appointments to the Bank of England, the European central bank or other agencies that handle market-sensitive information or statements.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will remember that there was a little conflict between us earlier on ageism, when he argued that self-regulation was more important than legislation. Does he believe, as I do, that in the past our financial institutions have been particularly effective at self-regulation? Why does he now think that it is necessary to impose additional regulations on those financial institutions?

Mr. Brady: As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have already mentioned the example that has been set by the European Commission, but clearly the Government, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, have been setting an appalling example. It sends out signals that conflicts of interest are not only tolerable but perhaps positively to be encouraged, and there are now reasons why the Government might consider correcting those messages. I hope that my reply reassures my hon. Friend that I have not gone soft on self-regulation or other aspects of market control.
The Prime Minister has appointed one DTI Minister to oversee genetically modified food and science who has large shareholdings in GM food companies, while another Minister appointed to control the offshore oil industry still held £2 million-worth of British Petroleum shares. If the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had been responsible for controlling or regulating the financial services industry while engaging in creative mortgage practices, he might also have been put in a difficult position by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have noise from hon. Members on the Government Benches—it is wrong. [Interruption.] Order. We must have more order in the House.

Mr. Brady: I seek to be brief, and I am grateful for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in bringing the House to order.
Given the worrying signals and mixed messages that the Government have sent out by allowing conflicts of interest at the very highest level of public service, it is now appropriate that they consider ways in which they may redress that balance. They should send out a new message that conflicts of interest are not to be tolerated and certainly not to be encouraged. Even if Ministers are not inclined to accept new clause 12, at least I have given them an opportunity to send out that message, to suggest ways in which they want to put their house in order and achieve better standards and to set out their views on containing and preventing conflicts of interest.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I must admit that I had difficulty in understanding new clause 12, to which my hon. Friend

the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) ably spoke, until he got towards the end of his speech and stated exactly what he was driving at. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench may feel somewhat embarrassed because the issue goes to the heart of the cronyism within the Government.
My hon. Friend was a little remiss in not describing the problems that the Government or any employer would face in taking on a person with a large number of interests. He made a strange decision to leave out of his speech any mention of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), whose case clearly goes to the heart of the problems—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Personal remarks against other hon. Members are uncalled for. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should realise that it is best to let me deal with the chairmanship of these proceedings. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what he is saying.

Mr. Bruce: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not intending to be personal in my remarks. The difficulties that any Government—any employer—might have in taking on people and thereby putting them into a difficult position go to the heart of this new clause.
It is important when we are legislating for the rest of country that we put such issues into contexts that we can understand as small employers and as people involved in the nature of government—we did so regularly in Committee. Time and again, the Government have totally ignored their own provisions. The unpaid Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has made speeches about ensuring that people's employment rights are preserved, yet he is simply a volunteer in the Government. I hope that somebody, somewhere is providing him with additional remuneration, which he obviously deserves. If so, we should be careful about whether that poses a conflict of interest. I do not make any accusation; that is not a personal comment. I sure that he is as honourable as any Labour Member—in fact, more honourable.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member intervenes, may I ask what the remarks directed at the Minister by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) have to do with new clause 12? I am at a loss to understand.

Mr. Bruce: I shall relate my remarks directly to the new clause. The new clause would help to address the problem that arises when somebody who accepts a job in good faith and works with the very best of intentions is then criticised for having to resign—as has happened with two hon. Members, and could happen in industry as well—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Bruce: If I may, I shall finish the sentence. The new clause would address the problem of people who have to resign, who then lose financially and have their careers cut short—in the case to which I referred, the employers were


the Government and the decision was taken by the Prime Minister—even though that was the fault of the employer. That goes to the centre of the new clause.

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) drew parallels with recent events in the European Commission. Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that, had Edith Cresson's dentist had the good fortune to have been an Englishman, he might have benefited from the protection of a clause such as this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Bruce: Edith Cresson's dentist was not an Englishman and, therefore, unfortunately, would not be protected by the new clause.

Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's most recent remarks. Does he agree that to meet the requirements of new clause 12, it would often be necessary for employees or potential employees to divulge to the employer past, present or potential conflicts of interest?

Mr. Bruce: That would be very important. It is interesting that, under the provisions of clause 28, which are about to be amended by new schedule 2, employment agencies alone must make proper checks on individuals entering employment. If we accepted the new clause, such checks would have to apply to all employers and employees. That is the important issue.
We are probing to find out how Ministers intend to stop employees being put in an embarrassing situation and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West rightly wants to know how the Government believe that this matter should be dealt with.
We have tried to put those serious points into context, not because we want to embarrass individual Members of the House, but simply so that people can understand them. I invite the Minister to enlighten us.

Mr. Wills: I, too, was baffled when I read the new clause, but I was reassured when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) told me that it was an experiment. I hope that he keeps practising, because he has a lot of work to do, but I shall pay him the respect of treating the new clause as a serious experiment and will address it as it has been tabled.
Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Opposition have fought our proposals for underpinning in law basic, decent standards of employment practice. They appear to have been motivated by a doctrinaire dislike of the necessary legislation, so I was rather surprised to see in the new clause a proposal for new regulation-making powers, giving the Government powers to intervene where we see no need to do so. Indeed, those powers are backed by such draconian penalties that they reach level 6 on the standard scale—past the standard 5-level fine.
Why is it proposed that the Government should intervene in this area? What employer in his right mind would choose to employ people in positions where they are likely to finish up on the receiving end of criminal,

civil or regulatory charges? What benefit would an employer derive from having a person in their employment in such a situation? Of course employees, like others, may find themselves in a position where conflicts of interest arise, but the new clause assumes that employers are likely deliberately to employ people in such positions where serious conflicts could arise.
Sensible employers would do no such thing, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West knows that. If conflicts arise, they will have every incentive to make sensible arrangements to sort them out. In the circumstances in which conflicts of interest are most likely to arise—for example, in local government—there are rules requiring interests to be declared and for councillors to take no part in proceedings in which they have a financial interest. In other such areas, there are similar ways of dealing with those matters, but the onus to act with propriety must be on the employee—who knows when a conflict of interest is likely to arise—and not on the employer.
The hon. Gentleman has once again produced a solution for a non-existent problem and there is no case for his experimental new clause. I very much hope that he will withdraw it and not waste any more of the House's time.

Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the Minister for his typically courteous response. I shall not detain the House for long, but it was well worth flushing out the Government's position on this important issue.
My only real disappointment was the Minister's suggestion that the Prime Minister, by engaging people who were then subject to a conflict of interest, was behaving as no employer in his right mind would behave. From the Minister's point of view, that was an unfortunate suggestion, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will doubtless point out, he is unsalaried already, so perhaps he has less to lose than other Ministers.
It is unfortunate that the Minister did not stress the seriousness with which the Government take these matters and did not send out a message that they wish to put behind them some of their own difficulties with conflicts of interest. It would have been nice if a stronger message had been sent out to the private sector that it is possible for higher standards to be observed than some of those in the public sector.

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the Minister should take our line against more regulation in the only matter where he fears that the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers might be caught by the legislation?

Mr. Brady: I do not find that curious at all; I find it entirely predictable and typical of the conduct of the Government. It is disappointing that there was not a more convincing condemnation of those practices, and a more convincing attempt to show that the Government have turned over a new leaf. However, having made my point, and having heard the Minister's rather disappointing response, I have no desire to press the matter to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

BLACKLISTS

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'compilation' and insert 'use'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'unions' to end of line 4 on page 2.

Mr. Boswell: We move from the consideration of general issues to a more pointillist analysis of the Bill, and if we receive satisfactory responses from the Government, it may be possible to accelerate the pace slightly.
Clause 3 and amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relate to blacklists. We are far from certain that it is necessary to legislate on blacklists, but we are not reopening the issue of principle. However, a point in this regard arose in Committee which is embodied in the amendments.
If the amendments were agreed to, one of the two possible offences in connection with blacklists would be removed. As the Minister will no doubt wish to say when he replies, the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have not seen the details of what is to be proposed and they have not peen consulted upon. However, the amendments allow me to outline some of our concerns.
The amendments would confine an offence to the use of blacklists by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment. They would remove the offence of compilation of blacklists, for which there are at least three reasons.
First, as I said in Committee—in our haste to make progress, the Minister did not respond—it is possible for the compilation to take place outwith the jurisdiction altogether. For example, an agency in, for example, the United States, where the practice of union busting is a little more prevalent, might compile the list and post it on the internet. It is unclear whether an offence would then take place in the United Kingdom. Where that might take place is one of my concerns. On the other hand, the use of the blacklist in relation to UK legislation would be an offence which was tied to UK employees and would take place in the UK.
Secondly, lists could be compiled for a number of reasons, which may or may not, within the Government's terms, be malicious. One could compile a list at random. One could compile a list of trade unionists because one liked them or even wished to give preference to them rather than to discriminate against them. [Interruption.]
I am interested in the comments made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sorry that he is not addressing himself to the details of the point. It is important that we get the matter right. We are not contesting the principle; we are concerned that the legislation should be viable.
My third consideration relates to what might be termed the possession of a list. There is no provision in the Bill for the mere possession of a list to be an offence, nor am I canvassing for that. But the point at which the compilation is complete is a matter of interest. I can understand that a list which has been compiled with the

intention of being used to bust a union might be of concern to the Government, but what would happen if the list was in the process of compilation? When would we know whether it had been completed? When would we be able to say that it was definitely a list for the purposes of being used by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment? Those are legalistic points, but they have some merit.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not simply tell the truth? The truth is that the Tories favour blacklists.

Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—because if he is I am sure he will want to reconsider—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is the hon. Gentleman arguing for them?

Mr. Boswell: The argument is simply about whether the offence that the Government are proposing should be confined to the use of blacklists.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will remember the debate we had in Committee. The Bill does not ban blacklists: it bans lists of trade unionists. Clause 22 requires the Secretary of State to have a list of trade unionists to appoint to the Central Arbitration Committee.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The essential point is that, if the Government want to go down that road, they can probably insist on banning lists or blacklists, but it may be speculative to create a separate offence of compilation, however well secured by preparation of regulations and consultation on them and by the affirmative resolution procedure; and I cannot see that it is necessary. If there is a problem, it consists in the use of those lists for the purposes of employment, and I think that that is what the offence should be.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am puzzled about what the Conservatives are contriving to do, because on three separate occasions in the past 10 years I have tried to make blacklisting an offence and on each of those occasions the Conservative Government used their majority to defeat those aims. Now we hear that the Conservatives do not support blacklisting: they merely want to ensure that the Bill is amended to prohibit the use of a list instead of the compilation of a list. That is an extraordinary proposition. Those of us who are against blacklisting—the Tories apparently include themselves in that—want such lists to be neither compiled nor used. They cannot be used if they are not compiled.
If a group of people in another country compile a list and put it on the net, that is obviously not within our jurisdiction. However, we can deal with offences within our jurisdiction and take action against those who compile or use such lists in this country.
Amendment No. 12 is plain silly, because it would prevent trade unions from making a list of members to ask them if they want insurance on loans, credit cards or holiday bargains. What is the sense in that?
I am glad to see this clause in the Bill. I have been campaigning on the issue for many years. In 1989, when I proposed this measure for inclusion in an Employment Bill, the Tories rejected it. That night, 170 hon. Members supported it, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am pleased that this measure will go through the House on this occasion.

Mr. Fabricant: I support the amendments because I believe that the days of the Economic League in the 1980s are past. I also believe that the Bill, as it stands, is unenforceable. 0I suspect that the Minister believes that too. Clause 3(2) says:
The Secretary of State may make regulations".
It says not "will" make, but "may" make regulations. The Secretary of State knows that, if he were to make such regulations, they would be unenforceable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, when is a list a list? When is a list compiled, and when it is merely half completed or fully completed? There is no clarity in the law. Is a series of post-it notes a list?

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way, because it is in the interests of the House that I finish my speech relatively quickly, and interventions take time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the House up, far be it from me to prevent him.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
My point is very clear and very simple. There is a dissuasive element in the Bill in relation to the compilation of blacklists, but the hon. Gentleman is right that a decision on whether a list is just a list or a blacklist must come after the list has been compiled. That dissuasive element must clearly be in place, so that people know that it is not right to do it in the first place.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not think that the purpose of law is to influence opinion; I think that it is to legislate. I am saying that clause 3 is a bad clause because it is unenforceable in many ways. I think that it will be challenged in the courts, and I do not think that the question of when a list is a list is at all clear.
In fact, the whole clause is unnecessary in any case. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to claim that she had consistently argued against blacklists. She may remember that on 12 April 1988 she presented a ten-minute Bill
to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting.
I think that that was an excellent idea.
We expected today, when a statement was made on the modernisation of government, to hear when there would be a freedom of information Bill, but nothing was said. Such a Bill would have given further access not only to blacklists held by individuals, but to blacklists that may well be held by the Government in relation to certain people. Why is there no such thing as a freedom of information Bill? What are the Government frightened of?
I believe that clause 3 is impossible in terms of legislation, and impossible to maintain in a court of law. I think that the amendment, which simply suggests that use of a blacklist should be deterred, is far more useful and sensible than the provisions in the Bill; and, as I have said, it is clear from the words "may make regulations" that the Secretary of State accepts my argument.

Mr. Byers: For the record, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right to say that clause 3(2) gives the Secretary of State a power which he may exercise, and I certainly intend to exercise that power if I stay in my post long enough. To be blacklisted from employment—to be unable to work in one's profession or trade—simply because of trade union membership or activity is entirely unacceptable, and many of my hon. Friends have fought and campaigned for years for the day when, through legislation, we can ensure that such blacklisting is no more. That is exactly what clause 3 does, but we have to do this by way of regulation. I look forward to the time when we can debate in the House regulations that will, in detail, introduce the prohibition. There can be no place, in the last year of the century, for people being blacklisted for trade union membership.
The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke of points of law. There is a legal position underpinning the legislation, but we also believe that there is a responsibility in legislation to reflect public opinion. The message is simple. We do not believe that we should tolerate the keeping, the compiling or the use of lists that can be used to deny people work and the opportunity to earn their living, which is what blacklisting effectively does.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: No. We have heard many exchanges this evening; some have been significant, many trivial in the extreme, but the time has now come to make some progress.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would ensure that it would no longer be a criminal offence to compile a list of people relating to their trade union activities. We believe that that should be a criminal offence. We also believe that it should be a criminal offence to use such a list for the purpose of blacklisting individuals.
With respect to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), there is no earthly reason why compilation should not be an offence. I agree with some of my hon. Friends that it is more of a wrecking amendment than one that seeks to deal with the issue of individuals being blacklisted from work. That is why I will invite the House to resist the two amendments.
On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Daventry, it is true that compilation outside the UK will not be subject to our legislation; it is like any other area of law. It is a loophole, but one which it is not within our power to control. I regret that, but that is the reality. However, it is no reason not to move forward with clause 3.
The hon. Member for Daventry says that lists could be held for a number of reasons, but then fails to outline what those reasons might be in the context of clause 3.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Byers: No; I am not giving way.
Our view is that it is inappropriate to give people a power to compile a list for the purposes that are outlined in clause 3. One must ask why people need to possess such a list if they are not going to use it for purposes that we believe are wholly unacceptable.
I had hoped that even the Conservative party in 1999 would support measures to stop blacklisting. I regret that it is unable to do that and that its two amendments seek to water down clause 3. I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, will reconsider the matter, look carefully at the effects of his amendments and agree that it is far better to keep the robust approach in clause 3 than to water it down.

Mr. Boswell: I suppose that the Secretary of State might expect me to defer to his superior legal knowledge in the matter, but with respect, I do not think that he has entirely addressed himself to the legal difficulties that I sought to outline, other than to concede that some of them were valid because we could not control the compilation of lists outside our jurisdiction.
I also noticed that the Secretary of State inserted into the various tests what he described at one point as keeping a list and at another point as possessing a list; it is not clear whether he has taken the relevant powers under the clause, or whether keeping or possessing a list is subsumed under the use of a list. It will be a matter of some concern if people who have a list in their possession—however they have come by it; perhaps they have inherited it from a parent—are guilty of a criminal offence even if they have never used it or intended to use it.
Nevertheless, having raised those points and invited the Secretary of State to reconsider them in preparing his regulations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

NOTICE RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 17 on page 3 and insert—
'. Schedule (Ballots and notices) shall have effect.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'union', insert
'(or, if acting together, unions)'.
Government new schedule 1.
Government amendment No. 52.

Mr. Byers: I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13.
I will be brief but, obviously, in reply to the debate, I will try to answer any questions that might be raised. However, I hope that we can make progress because some important groups of amendments are coming up, on which hon. Members want to speak.
The Government have made it clear that they intend to retain the key elements of the law on industrial action. Nothing in the Bill or in the amendments infringes that principle. For example, ballots will still be held, notices must still be given and secondary action will remain unlawful. However, by common consent, current law on industrial action and, in particular, on balloting is extremely complex. In some cases, the burdens arising from the present procedures serve no useful purpose in extending democratic accountability within unions; nor do they always help employers to resolve a dispute or to mitigate the consequences of action.
Our amendments seek to make the situation easier for trade unions and employers. Our approach will ensure that both parties can concentrate on resolving a dispute, rather than being bogged down in detailed discussions about whether the complexity of the present procedures has been followed in all its forms. A number of proposals achieve those ends. They are relatively technical, and I hope that the House will be able to agree with them in that spirit. However, I will reply to any questions that hon. Members may have.
I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13. I believe that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) tabled it in a genuine spirit to try to foster good industrial relations. However, there are difficulties. The existing procedures, and those in new schedule 1, require trade unions to ballot independently. It is important that that should be continued. However, there is nothing to prevent trade unions from voluntarily doing that in a concerted way, so that ballots can be held at roughly the same time, and so that results can be declared and employers informed. There is much merit in that joint and co-operative approach, which we commend as good practice. However, we are not convinced that adopting the rather restrictive approach suggested in amendment No. 13 would be in the best interests of good industrial relations.
Following that brief explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 13, and agree that our proposals will address some of the present complexities and ensure that we can make good progress in supporting good industrial relations.

Mr. Boswell: The Secretary of State correctly interpreted my intentions in relation to amendment No. 13, which I will not press in light of what he has said. However, I re-emphasise that it is important for unions to work together whenever possible. It will look odd if one union has not applied the four-weeks rule and another has. Circumstances could arise where that was the case.
New schedule 1 appears to be broadly acceptable. In certain respects—particularly the notice provisions—it seems positively sensible to enable unions to comply with a court order or an agreement with the employers to suspend the period. I wish to refer to proposed paragraph (2)(bb) because I simply do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Secretary of State could drop me a line about that.
Could the Secretary of State confirm that the intention is that, on the voting paper,
action short of a strike
should include an overtime ban and a call-out ban? Reference has been made to consideration in due course to a proposal to reduce the period of protection to four weeks. We would not wish to concede that at this stage.
On inducement, the new schedule does not make clear the circumstances that are envisaged. I am not sure whether a member of a union who does not join in a ballot would be protected. I think that he would be for the protected period, but not thereafter. Perhaps the Secretary of State can look into that and respond in due course. Like the rest of the schedule, it may well be better addressed by those who brief us, and they may need a little more time to look at the implications. If they do, further amendments could be considered in another place.
12 midnight

Mr. Byers: I shall try to respond briefly to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman is right about overtime and call-out bans; they are included in action short of strike action. He also mentioned the health warning on the ballot paper, and I can confirm that we shall ensure that the attention of individual members is drawn to the effects of the measures—a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
As for non-balloted members being invited to take industrial action, the alteration is designed to deal with individuals who may have changed jobs in the period between the ballot and the taking of the action.
I think that those were the three main issues raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. If there are any others, I shall respond to them in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED

Mr. Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 5, line 38, at end insert—
'(1A) This section shall not apply to an employer who shows that to comply with it would conflict with his religious beliefs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 12, page 6, line 33, at end insert
'but such a complaint shall not succeed if the employer can show that he was unable to comply as a consequence of his religious conscience.'.
No. 39, in schedule 1, page 26, line 23, after "22', insert
'except for reasons of religious conscience.

Mr. Brady: In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall endeavour to be brief. However, I would not wish any hon. Member to draw an inference from that that the matter was any the less serious. I tabled the amendment with particular regard to the rights of some of my constituents who are members of the Plymouth Brethren. Many other hon. Members also represent communities of Plymouth Brethren in different parts of the country.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I spoke in support of amendments that would have protected the freedom of members of the Plymouth Brethren to practise their religion in the way that they believe is appropriate and right, and which they have followed for some 150 years in this country.
During that time, members of the brethren have benefited from the religious freedom and tolerance of which many of us are proud. They are a decent, God-fearing group of people who seek to live their lives strictly according to holy scripture. I note that some Labour Members seem to find that amusing. I find that rather disappointing; I regard the matter as having the gravest significance. Members of the Plymouth Brethren and other religious communities will be disappointed by the reaction of the Labour Members who find what I am saying amusing.

Mr. John Maxton: It will not make the slightest difference to any Member of the House of Commons what the Plymouth Brethren thinks of us, because its members never vote in general elections.

Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is important, because to some hon. Members, it matters what people in our country are free to do, regardless of their ability to reward either individual Members or political parties with their votes. I take pride in the fact that I am speaking for a group of people who do not participate directly in the political process. That is all the more reason why they need Members of Parliament who are prepared to speak for their interests.
I do not share the brethren's religious beliefs—and I do not wish to be diverted by Labour Members who clearly do not take religious freedom and tolerance seriously. It is disappointing, and embarrassing for the House, that some Members take that stance. However, I shall return to my main point.
The Plymouth Brethren is a fairly small community, but its members run 1,200 businesses, mainly small ones, which employ 6,500 people, all but 2,000 of whom are members of the brethren. In general, they are among the best of employers, and I have heard no one question that assertion. In the conduct of their businesses, and in the relations between employer and employee, they are beyond reproach.
The Plymouth Brethren's interpretation of scripture is that the master-servant relationship is God-given. It is not appropriate, therefore, for any organisation to intervene in that relationship.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend fear that some people may claim to be members of the Plymouth Brethren in order to extricate themselves from the Bill's provisions?

Mr. Brady: No. Members of the Plymouth Brethren live a particular type of life. My hon. Friend's point could be made on virtually any aspect of the Bill. Every other part of it can be established before an industrial tribunal, and I cannot see why the validity of someone's claim to be a member of a particular religious community cannot come into the same category.
The Plymouth Brethren's religious beliefs mean that its members do not think it appropriate for trade unions or trade or employers associations to intervene in the relationship between master and servant. That has important implications for the recognition aspects of the Bill and for representation in grievance hearings.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out that the Plymouth Brethren does not participate in the political process. That is no reason why


we should not seek to defend its freedom. This is not a party political matter. When it was debated in Standing Committee, Labour Members gave a more mature response than some of them have tonight. This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and tolerance. Earlier debates have related to tolerance for other groups, and I cannot see why the Plymouth Brethren should be treated with any less respect, though others clearly take a different view.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said in Committee that the Plymouth Brethren, of which he has had some experience in his constituency, is
a religious community beyond reproach".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 1999; c. 164.]
He said that he had some difficulty understanding the community's position, and that difficulty goes to the heart of the matter. Many of us, on both sides, may find it difficult to understand the position adopted by the Plymouth Brethren. Perhaps none of us chooses to live as its members do. However, that does not make their choices any less valid, and it does not constitute a reason not to tolerate their religious views, or not to give them the freedom that we enjoy.
The Minister of State also said that the accompanying person in a grievance procedure would be there to advise and support, not to intervene or answer questions. However, the Bill says, in clause 11(2)(b) and (c) that the person is
permitted to address the hearing
and
is to be permitted to confer
during the hearing.
The Bill clearly intervenes in the relationship between master and servant, and between employer and employee. The amendment is of the utmost importance because it goes to the heart of the religious freedom and tolerance for which our country is known and in which we—at least, the Conservatives—believe. I hope for a constructive response from the Minister.

Mr. Bercow: I am pleased to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). In so doing, I say at the outset that I am genuinely saddened and shocked by the reaction of a number of Labour Members. In particular, it is a source of regret to me and—I suspect—several others that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who is a long- serving Member of Parliament and someone who sits on the Chairmen's Panel on behalf of Members of this House, should behave with such gross disrespect to a community of people who wish to defend and uphold their right to live their lives in the way that they think fit. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the nous to appreciate that he has behaved contemptibly, that says more about him than it does about the Conservative Opposition or members of the Plymouth Brethren. The same goes for other Labour Members, many of whom are in a tired and emotional state tonight. If they think such behaviour is funny or clever, or that it elevates them to a higher plane than the people on whom they sit in judgment, it is lamentable. Tolerance is not about putting up with people of whom or activities of which one

approves: it is about putting up with activities one dislikes and people of whom one disapproves or whom one does not understand. If right hon. and hon. Members are not open to that blindingly obvious point, it is very regrettable.
Members of the Plymouth Brethren, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West pointed out, are God-fearing people. There are members of the Plymouth Brethren in many constituencies and at least 50 in my constituency. I know that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, to whom we wish a speedy recovery, has had several meetings with members of the brethren over many months. He was good enough to say in Committee that they had always made their case effectively and courteously to him.

Mr. Byers: indicated assent.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's assent to that point. The Minister of State added in Committee that he wished that other people who had come to see him had been as courteous. They had not, and the fact that a member of the Chairmen's Panel does not have the manners to listen to the views of the Plymouth Brethren is a sad commentary indeed.
Members of the Plymouth Brethren made it clear that nothing can interfere with the sanctity of the Lord's supper in the conduct of their lives. They have no personal hostility to trade unions or to members of trade unions, but because of their religious convictions, they do not recognise trade unions and, in the running of their businesses, they are not willing to accept the presence of union officials in the circumstances provided for in the Bill. In a letter of 22 February to the Minister of State, the members of the brethren made it clear that they had no intention of derailing the Bill: they simply sought an exemption from it.
The estimable commentary on the European convention on human rights by Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick states that it contains a strong affirmation of the power and even the duty to protect manifestations of religious belief. The Human Rights Act 1998 underlines the importance of respecting individual human rights, including the entitlement to practise one's religious beliefs. If Ministers do not accept the amendments, will they explain to the House, the brethren and the country why they do not accept them? If Ministers will not accept the amendments, by what practical means do they intend to safeguard the interests and the freedoms of the Plymouth Brethren?
At least one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), said in Committee that he hoped that the Minister of State would have some kind and helpful words to meet the interests of the community. Though he endeavoured to do so, he did not offer reassurance. I hope that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will tonight, and that he will reaffirm his respect for communities whose practices he does not share and with whose beliefs he disagrees. If he does, he will signally distinguish himself from several of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Wills: As hon. Members who served on the Committee, particularly the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Buckingham


(Mr. Bercow) know, we discussed the Plymouth Brethren and matters of religious conscience at length. The Government made clear our respect for all those with religious consciences or who believe in religious practices.
The Department of Trade and Industry has had numerous contacts with members of the brethren. Officials met them before the Committee and again last week to discuss their concerns. I understand that many of the employees under discussion are members of the brethren and would therefore not wish to be accompanied by trade union officials at disciplinary or grievance hearings. It is therefore in practice most unlikely that one of the very few brethren businesses—I think that we are talking about some 35 in all—with more than 20 employees would face an application for membership that passes the test that we have set. In the unlikely event of such an application, the Central Arbitration Committee would no doubt take account, subject to the law, of the constraints imposed on the employer by religious conscience.
I do not doubt that the amendments are well meant, but they raise the difficult issue of whether workers' rights under law can or should be curtailed because of an employer's religious beliefs. Of course the Government respect religious freedoms, but we also respect the right to freedom of association and to form and join trade unions. Both those freedoms are enshrined in the European convention on human rights, so we face a conflict between two fundamental principles.
I have no reason to doubt that members of the brethren are good employers. We do not underestimate the sincerity of their beliefs. However, as my right hon. Friend the sadly missed Minister of State made clear in Committee on 25 February, the Government cannot accept that the religious freedom of employers, who are, after all, free to choose whether to employ others and how to arrange their affairs, should take precedence over the rights of individuals to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. The Government cannot agree that workers should be deprived of their statutory rights to recognition or to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary hearings, which are fundamental human rights, because of the religious beliefs of their employers. Moreover, there must be a danger that any religious exemption would be a loophole through which unscrupulous employers would seek to exploit the Bill.
I repeat that the beliefs of the brethren are sincerely held. The Bill could pose some real problems for the members. I listened carefully to what has been said today and in Committee. I undertook then to continue to look at these issues carefully and to consider whether we can reasonably do anything to take account of the situation of the brethren without undermining the basic principles of the Bill. I undertake to continue so to consider.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wills: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have discussed this at great length, and I want to come to the nub of my remarks.
Unfortunately, we cannot accept the amendments for the same reasons that we could not accept them in Committee. To do so would put at risk fundamental freedoms and rights of individual workers. However, as I

have said, we shall continue to think further about the matter and we will of course examine any further proposals that the brethren may care to put to us. I hope that, in the light of my remarks and reassurances, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Under-Secretary for his courteous and thoughtful response, which was in marked contrast to the comments of some Government Members. I am grateful for his conduct on the matter, as I am for the thoughtful response from the Minister of State. However, I cannot accept the arguments that the Under-Secretary makes. Although a very small number of businesses may be affected, the sincerity of the religious principle is not any the less real.
The question of recognition procedures may affect very few employees, but for grievance procedures there is no minimum threshold for employee numbers. I do not believe that there is any genuine conflict between articles 9 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. There is no problem in the amendments and the right to free association and to membership of a trade union is not in question. It is simply that a question is posed in certain circumstances in relation to recognition proceedings. There is no contravention of the convention.
I think that I heard the Minister say that the brethren were free to employ whom they saw fit, which is perhaps an invitation to them not to employ people who are not brethren, which would be an interesting response.
I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not felt it possible to go further on behalf of the Government and that the best that he could offer was respect for, not tolerance of, religious beliefs. That really is not good enough. Given the lateness of the hour, I reluctantly do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I feel deeply aggrieved, as will many of my constituents, that more progress has not been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 6, at end insert
'(d) is to be permitted to speak only on matters which are directly relevant to the subject of the hearing'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 6, line 9, at end insert
', provided that he is a full—time official.'.
No. 50, in clause 13, page 7, line 33, at end insert—
'(6) In the application of subsections (1)b and 3(b) above, where a worker seeks to accompany another worker not of the same employer, the employer of the accompanying worker shall be entitled to require that worker to take unpaid leave while absent from their place of work during the relevant period or periods.'.

Mr. Brady: The amendments relate to a tighter definition of the circumstances at a disciplinary or grievance hearing. They seek to tighten up the circumstances within which—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are all serious amendments and the House must listen to the debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Buckingham


(Mr. Bercow), the pompous person, called a name across to one of my hon. Friends which was quite uncalled for. He should withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything called across the Chamber and I suggest that we return to the amendment in hand.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to move matters forward for the benefit of the House, but with little co-operation from Labour Members, it must be noted. It is important that the circumstances in which a person accompanying someone at a disciplinary or grievance hearing can act—in what ways and on what matters that person can speak—should be properly defined. The amendments would define the principle of the matter, in a way that would not affect the nature of the Bill but would clearly limit the activities of trade unions in this context to proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

Mr. Boswell: I rise to comment on my amendment No. 4. The concern underlying it has been expressed by the Engineering Employers Federation and others. It is that persons may be brought along to a disciplinary or grievance hearing who may be inappropriate for the case in point.
I want to confine representation outwith the firm to full-time union officials, because concern has been expressed to us that unless representation is thus tied down, it might include, for example, a shop steward from a rival firm, who might be a trade union official but whose presence might prove difficult in the circumstances. I invite the Government to consider that matter further.

Mr. Wills: In respect of amendment No. 4, it appears that despite the fact that a Conservative Government enshrined in law the right to belong to a union of one's choice, the Opposition seem unable to accept the logical consequence: that trade union representatives should be allowed to represent their members in crucial matters. We see no compelling reason why that right should be denied to union members.
Presumably, if Conservative Members had had more time, they might have argued that employers would not feel free to discuss a sensitive subject before an outsider—perhaps someone employed by a competitor. There is no force in that argument; it is highly improbable that genuine issues of commercial confidentiality would arise and such issues would have to be revealed if the event led to a tribunal. The amendment is unnecessary and unacceptable; it would limit an important right and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw it.
Amendment No. 44 would qualify and narrow the range of functions that the accompanying person may perform when fulfilling that role. We should not lose sight of the purpose of that right; it will enable vulnerable workers to have support and a helping hand in presenting their case cogently and effectively when that might otherwise be impossible. There is no reason to limit the scope of the clause in that way.
Amendment No. 50 covers situations in which the accompanying person is not employed by the same employer as the worker who is being accompanied.

Conservative Members want to limit the costs incurred by the accompanying person's employer. I shall put their minds at rest: the measure will not be a burden on employers. Several options are available to them and the arrangements that we have in hand adequately deal with the issue. The Bill will involve minimal disruption to third party employers; it does not require such employers to give paid leave. I see no reason for qualifying that right further. The amendment is as unnecessary as the others in the group and I hope that they will not be pressed.

Mr. Brady: I am disappointed in that response, but given the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

COMPLAINT TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

Amendment made: No. 166, in page 7, line 9, at end insert—
'() The limit in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (maximum amount of week's pay) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 13

DETRIMENT AND DISMISSAL

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 7, line 30, at end insert—
'() Sections 128 to 132 of that Act (interim relief) shall apply in relation to dismissal for the reason specified in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above as they apply in relation to dismissal for a reason specified in section 128(1)(b) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 17

AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE DISMISSAL RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 9, line 12, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.

No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
'(4) In section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
(4) This section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of—

(a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or
(b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),
except where in relation to Northern Ireland the person in question is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal.
(5) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999, for sub-paragraph (3) there shall be substituted
(3) This paragraph does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of—

(a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or
(b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),


except where in relation to Northern Ireland the employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal."'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 20

CODE OF PRACTICE: SUPPLEMENTAL

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 11, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
'() If the draft code is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code in the form of the draft.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 23

CAC: PROCEEDINGS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

'(5) If—

(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and
(b) a majority of the panel have the same opinion,
the question shall be decided according to that opinion.

(5A) If—

(a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and
(b) a majority of the panel do not have the same opinion,
the chairman of the panel shall decide the question acting with the full powers of an umpire or, in Scotland, an oversman.'—[Mr. Wills.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rural public passenger transport for 1999–2000 (HC 283), which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 45) (Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 1999–2000) (HC 305), which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)

That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rail services in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.

BROADCASTING

That the draft Limit in Relation to Licences to Provide Radio Multiplex Services Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (Wales) Order 1999, dated 9th March 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.

PRISONS

That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 525), dated 3rd March 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Motor Cycling

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Stephen Pound: I had presumed that, as I rose to my feet, most hon. Members would choose to leave the Chamber, but I have not been quite as disappointed as I feared I would be. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the important subject of motor cycling as part of an integrated transport strategy. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me when I say that the words "motor cycle" are interchangeable with "powered two-wheelers", as I mean no prejudice against riders of scooters—or sewing machines, as we used to call them.
More than most groups in society, motor cyclists are victims of image. Many of us were brought up seeing, and have never quite escaped from, the image of Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" riding his Triumph Bonneville 750, but some us have striven to see beyond the stereotype of the biker, because we have suffered from that stereotypical view of bikers and biking. Motor cycling—the use of powered two-wheelers—is not about speed, image, or leather. It is not necessarily about laying the needle against the pin, red-lining it and getting your knee down—practices of which I know, or at least remember, little. Motor cycling is now an informed, responsible and mature choice.
Like many people in this country, I was delighted in February 1997 to read the then Labour Opposition's policy document entitled, somewhat infelicitously, "Bike to Basics". The author of that document was at that time shadow Transport Minister, and is now the Minister for Transport in London. I was delighted to read her pledge that motor cycling would be at the heart of the national transport agenda. Nothing that has happened since then has disappointed me. Like many bikers, I welcome chapter 3 of "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in July 1998, which spoke about the policies that the Government are introducing for powered two-wheelers. I and many of my colleagues welcome what has been done, but, sadly—perhaps not surprisingly—we look for more.
We look for some indication from the Government that local authorities will be persuaded, cajoled or possibly even nudged in the direction of including within the five-year transport plans a motor cycling strategy along the lines pioneered by the former Avon county council. We look for such things as secure parking at modal interchange points, in line with the transport White Paper, and for infrastructure improvements, because the riders of powered two-wheelers suffer disproportionately from problems of potholes, loose gravel, diesel spillage and poor road surfaces. Powered two-wheeler exemption from local road user charging and restrictions on bus lanes and higher occupancy vehicle lanes would also be greatly appreciated, as would permission for powered two-wheelers to use the advance stop lines that have proved so successful with pedal cyclists. Powered two-wheeler access to urban centre clear zones would also be appreciated—where that has been tested, it has not proved to be a problem.
I am not submitting a shopping list, but simply asking for recognition. There are 629,000 registered motor cycles in the United Kingdom, and motor cyclists—many of whom are in the Chamber tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears)—contribute, not personally but collectively, £75 million per annum to the Exchequer through fuel and vehicle excise duty. Sadly, some people still believe that more bikes will lead to more accidents. In 1996, 440 riders of powered two-wheelers were killed and 22,604 riders were injured on British roads. However, before people gain the mistaken impression that this is a lethal mode of transport, I must inform the House that powered two-wheelers are the only group to have met the year 2000 safety target. In fact, a reduction of 62.5 per cent. against a target of minus 40 per cent. was achieved by 1997 using the 1981–85 baseline figures.
Riders and the industry are responsible. In March 1998, Honda introduced the Honda motor cycle appreciation course, and 6,000 students have been trained to date by the 75 ex-police instructors who operate that excellent course. Motor cycling is about freedom, but it is also environmentally friendly and fuel efficient, and eases congestion. Bikers may be serious, by biking is fun. Anyone who has swooped like a swallow around the A roads of our nation will know the joy of motor cycling.
I think that motor cycling's time has come. It is a mode of transport for the 21st century. I welcome the commitment to the industry that the Government have made collectively and that the Minister has made personally. I am grateful for this opportunity tonight to speak for a few moments about a subject that means a great deal to me and to many others in this country. I apologise for the discourtesy of not apprising you of this sooner, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall now conclude to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Salford to make an informed contribution to the debate.

Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has secured tonight's Adjournment debate, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to contribute.
Unlike my hon. Friend, I am a relative newcomer to biking, having passed my test only two years ago as a present to myself on my 40th birthday. I have just bought my first big bike—at least, it is a very big bike to me. As my hon. Friend said, motor cycling can help to cut congestion in urban areas and reduce pollution, and it is environmentally friendly. At long last, we have a Government who are prepared to acknowledge the role that motor bikes can play in our transport system.
If we are to encourage more people to take to two wheels, we must take action to make their bikes more secure and to reduce bike theft. I know what that feels like, because it has happened to me: my motor bike was stolen. Having a motor bike stolen is like losing a best friend; it is devastating. Preventing that crime in the first place must be a top priority.
As my hon. Friend said, there are thousands of motor cycle owners in this country. In fact, 25,000 motor bikes are stolen every year, but the recovery rate is only 14 per cent.—a mere 3,500 bikes are recovered each year. In the past three years, 52,000 motor bikes have been reported stolen and not been recovered. We should contrast that


with the recovery rate for stolen cars. About 400,000 cars are stolen every year in England and Wales, but the overall recovery rate is 65 per cent. Something like 260,000 stolen cars are recovered every year, but the recovery rate for stolen bikes is much lower.
Vehicle crime costs this country about £3 billion a year in total; so, cutting motor cycle theft not only makes good economic sense, but will reduce the distress and heartache caused to many riders who lose their pride and joy. The Home Office has set a tough target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next three years, and cutting motor cycle theft would assist it enormously in that endeavour.
I can offer a few suggestions for reducing motor cycle theft. First, all motor bikes are required to have engine and chassis numbers that tally with the vehicle registration documents. We must ensure that that requirement applies to off-road and racing bikes also, because a whole industry is devoted to stealing, stripping, ringing, selling and shipping bikes abroad. We must have better identification of bikes in this country. In America, the Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act 1984 requires manufacturers to mark 12 different components of the motor cycle with identification, which not only helps to deter theft, but enables the police to identify the owners when their property is recovered.
My second suggestion is that more motor cycles should have built-in alarm systems fitted at source. We expect that of cars in this day and age, but bike manufacturers have been appallingly slow in introducing them for motor bikes. I understand that Kawasaki have just produced two bikes with built-in alarm systems, and I want the Government to encourage manufacturers to do much more.
The third and, perhaps, the most important point is the need for secure parking. About 80 per cent. of motor cyclists say that parking is the most important issue in deciding whether to use their bikes.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a welcome fact that a first Conservative Member, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), has joined the debate? So far, several Labour Members and two Liberal Democrat Members have been present to support this Adjournment debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to study the nature of Adjournment debates.

Ms Blears: I am aware that the hon. Member for New Forest, East has a personal interest in motor cycling.
Provision of secure parking is important, because many bikes are stolen by being manhandled into vans. Opportunist thieves can steal a locked bike in seconds. I am delighted that, in our document "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the Government have said that, in drawing up local transport plans, local authorities should consider specific measures to assist motor cyclists, such as secure parking at public transport interchange sites.
I know that many local authorities, with the Government's backing, are now embarking on positive measures to provide secure anchorage points at the

kerbside or by using hoops and rails. Several experiments in Coventry and Bristol have provided effective low-cost schemes utilising areas of pedestrianised roads where railings have been erected to which people can lock their bikes. That costs next to nothing, but provides a tremendous degree of security.
The Motor Cycle Industry Association has produced excellent guidelines about the location, construction and value for money of various initiatives. I do not have the time to describe all of them now, but there are three particularly welcome pieces of advice. The first, which relates to location, says, "Please do not place the secure parking facilities on steep gradients." As a relatively short rider, I appreciate that.
The second piece of advice is that sites chosen should not be susceptible to environmental disadvantage such as flooding, falling tree sap or bird droppings. Most bikers would appreciate not having bird droppings on their bikes.
Thirdly, and intriguingly, secure parking should not be situated over gratings and grids where people might drop their keys when they go to move their motor bike.
It is also important that we try to involve local sponsors in those schemes. We might be able to get insurance companies, motor cycle dealers and local businesses to sponsor secure parking. Now that we have a Government who are positive about motor cycling, we can make progress on that.
On an entirely separate matter, I make a plea to the Government promptly to consider the automatic ban that applies to learner motor cyclists who do not pass their test within two years of getting their provisional licence. That can put many riders, particularly young people, off motor cycling, and they then turn to cars. That ban is viewed as unfair and discriminatory because it does not apply to car drivers. I know that there has been extensive consultation by the Driving Standards Agency and a number of options were suggested. I am delighted that the Government are reconsidering that issue, because our policies should be directed towards encouraging learner drivers to gain better road skills and training, rather than penalising them and putting them off motor cycling for ever.
Motor cycling has changed dramatically in recent years. It is becoming respectable with people of all ages and from all walks of life. Respectability will no doubt damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but I, for one, am glad of that respectability. Perhaps there will always be an element of rebellion about riding a motor bike, but, for thousands of people in Britain, motor cycling is an affordable, efficient form of transport. Let us not forget that, for all of us riders, it is great fun, too.
Motor cycling is exciting; it is exhilarating; it can be done alone or in a group, but, whichever way it is done, it is the best way that I know of to blow away the cobwebs at the end of a long, hard parliamentary week. I hope that many more people will join our ranks and discover the joys of riding. When they do, I hope that they will have the support of the Government, who want to make motor cycling a real part of our transport policy, and will ensure that the voices of riders are heard loud and clear.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) for raising the issue of motor cycling, for his generosity in affording the opportunity for our hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to add her particularly informed contribution to the debate, and for raising the memory of Marlon Brando in virtually anything.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for raising the issue of motor cycling as a component of our integrated transport policy. Even in opposition, we were actively considering the issue, resulting in "Bike to Basics", which helped us to develop informed views.
In November 1997, following the publication of "Bike to Basics", we consulted widely among motor cycle, environmental and safety groups. We continued and completed that process by publishing our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July last year—the first major transport policy statement for 20 years. We believe that motor cycling does have a role to play in integrated transport. Mopeds and motor cycles are a sensible means of transport for many journeys. At the most recent count, there were 626,000 motor cycles in the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the undoubted reduction in motor cycling accidents, but we must still be concerned about the safety of this form of transport because, in 1997, there were 509 motor cycle fatalities. In the same year, motor bikes comprised under 1 per cent. of road traffic, but their riders suffered 14 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. We must reduce that appalling toll. We believe that that can best be achieved through better education—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford—and, where necessary, regulation.
As long ago as 1990, the requirement was introduced for all new learner motor cyclists and moped riders to complete a course of compulsory basic training before being allowed to ride on a road. Many learner motor cyclists at that time were choosing not to take any form of professional tuition. Training has played an important part in reducing the number of casualties, which until 1997, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North pointed out, had been falling. But we must do better.
We are also addressing licensing. Currently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, a provisional licence is valid for two years. After that, if a full licence has not been gained, a year must elapse before a provisional licence can be renewed. As she said, some regard that as unfair and unnecessary. We have consulted widely on the relaxation of the rule, and are reflecting on the responses.
Safety is, of course, not just about the action of motor cyclists. Motor cyclists are vulnerable to the behaviour of other road users. We have therefore introduced more questions in the driving theory test to increase the awareness of drivers to the vulnerability of others, and from next week, such questions will be added to the theory test for learner lorry and bus drivers. From May, extra driving is being added to the practical test to allow a broader assessment of behaviour toward vulnerable road users, including motor cyclists, on a wider range of roads.
Motor cycles must be safe, too; so, after 17 June, all new models must meet the requirements of European whole vehicle type approval, as cars do already. From June 2003, that requirement will apply to all new motor cycles. That move will provide greater assurance that motor cycles that enter this country are constructed to high levels of rider safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford referred to an increasing need for the security of motor cycles. Whole vehicle type approval will require all new two and three-wheel motor vehicles, except mopeds, to be fitted with a locking system for the steering mechanism, thus preventing unauthorised use of the vehicle. Vehicle identification plates must be fitted, showing such information as the manufacturer's name, a unique vehicle identification number, the whole vehicle type approval number and certain technical information relating to noise output.
At present, there is no mandatory pan-European requirement for motor cycles to be fitted with alarm systems. However, we would certainly look carefully at any future European proposal to require alarm systems to be fitted.
Despite the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that motor cycling is not about speed, speed is a road safety issue that applies to all road users and is probably the single biggest road safety problem. My noble Friend Lord Whitty launched a speed management review last October. Part of that work will be to look at ways of managing vehicle speeds to improve the safety of all road users, including motor cyclists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North listed some of the dangers experienced by motor cyclists in respect of the state of our roads. Regrettably, we inherited a legacy of under-investment; so, to tackle the backlog of maintenance required to bring our network up to a safe and serviceable condition, we will be spending £2.3 billion on that project over the next three years. In December, we announced an increase in funding for English principal roads, from £80 million in 1998–99 to £113 million for 1999–2000. For other local authority roads, there is an increase of £46 million each year during the next three financial years in the highways maintenance standard spending assessment.
Local authorities are asked to take account of the contribution that motor cycling can make to their integrated transport plans, and we hope to see some firm proposals. A measure that we floated in the White Paper was secure parking at public transport interchange sites. We do not believe it right to require operators to provide secure parking—that is a matter for them—but local authorities can consider what they can do and we would like to help them.
Local authorities do not have the power to provide devices for securing motor bikes at the roadside, so we have agreed to support a private peer's Bill, which Lord Rotherwick introduced today in the other place, to enable local authorities to provide such facilities. If a local authority made a soundly based proposal for a pilot project allowing motor cycles to use bus lanes, we would seriously consider it. There are places where that is allowed already, but we need to be able to monitor a project—with data on conditions before and after—so that we can make an informed decision about whether the practice might be adopted as policy.
Motor cycles do not have the same implications for congestion as cars—their numbers are few in comparison and they take up less road space—but, on the other hand, we are considering encouraging high vehicle occupancy and a motor bike can carry a maximum of two persons, compared with four for a standard car.
Charging policy is also an issue. In December, we issued the consultation document "Breaking the Logjam". The consultation period ends tomorrow. We sought views on a general exemption for motor cycles from user charging and the workplace user charging levy. Our provisional view, which is set out in the consultation document, is to leave decisions to local discretion.
We have been considering the environmental benefits of motor cycles. Emission standards for new motor cycles and mopeds are due to be implemented later this year, but there is still some catching up to be done, especially on carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. Oil-burning two-stroke machines are also a concern due to particulate emissions.
Motor cycle and moped noise levels are also being reduced, and the European Commission is considering future standards for emissions and for noise as part of a scientific review being carried out with the motor cycle industry. The review will establish the technical feasibility of further controls and the costs and benefits of such measures. The proposals that the Commission may make as a result of the review are expected next year.
It is clear that there are arguments to balance before we can reach conclusions, and, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, we will be setting up an advisory group to look into some of those issues. The group will be chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty and we intend that it should meet soon, thereby fulfilling our commitments and our belief that motor cycling—and, indeed, motor cyclists—can be part of an integrated transport policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.